AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



693 



Those Foul Br<»04l Gx|>crinieiiil§ 

 — Parlliciiogcnesis. 



Written for the A^mei-ican Bee Journal 

 BY C. J. KOBINSON. 



On page 215, Mr. J. H. Larrabee re- 

 cords his " review of a Canadian report 

 of foul brood experiiueiits." Referring 

 to my record on page 56, he says : " Mr. 

 C. J. Robinson states that a glass can- 

 not aid the eye to distinguish foul brood 

 virus from other germs !" He offers no 

 evidence nor argument to invalidate my 

 " statement," yet edicts it grossly false. 

 He quotes Prof. J. J. Mackenzie as au- 

 thority to "directly contradict" my 

 quoted statement. Mr. Mackenzie, It 

 seems, has no knowledge of foul brood, 

 for he says : "I certainly would not be 

 prepared to spot foul brood in an apiary, 

 though I certainly thinU I can under the 

 the microscope." Not prepared to iden- 

 tify a case of seething foul brood in a 

 colony, yet Mr. Larrabee assumes to 

 contradict my statement because another 

 has " a new idea" — thinks he can dis- 

 tinguish, pick out, foul brood germs 

 from many other kinds always present 

 in decomposing brood. 



Mr. Cheshire recorded in the British 

 Bee Journal in 1884: "I have been 

 able to make out no less than five, or 

 possibly 24 distinct disorders (including 

 foul brood), arising from that number of 

 specifically different germs, all of which 

 will require prolonged attention if any- 

 thing very definite is to be arrived at re- 

 specting them." This English authority, 

 Mr. Larrabee says "cannot be weighed 

 against" his and Prof. M.'s guess, 

 " when we consider the sources from 

 which they came." 



The facts are, in all cases of rotting 

 bee-brood, there are present not less 

 than five different kinds of germs, 

 among them, if the brood has been taken 

 from that which is so-called /ouf, will be 

 foul brood virus — germs. Mr. Cheshire 

 says he has discovered two distinct 

 families of foul brood germs. I don't 

 dispute him, but I am confident he is 

 mistaken — as to identifying foul brood 

 germs among others present in decom- 

 posing brood. 



In Rochester, N. Y., we have an in- 

 stitution giving "new light" on the 

 science of microscopy, wherein are 

 scienced bacteriologists and equipage, 

 all of which is reputed equal to any in 

 the world. I am " prepared " to, and 

 do, challenge Mr. Larrabee, who con- 

 troverts my statements, to demonstrate 

 that foul brood virus may be distin- 



guished from other germs present in 

 rotting bee-brood. I wrote: "Germs 

 pervade all rotting brood, but only such 

 as feed upon aiiimate larvie are foul- 

 brood virus. A glass," etc. No reader 

 could infer therefrom that I had refer- 

 ence to such— " other germs "—as those 

 germs frisking in sauer-kraut, etc. 



THEORY OF PARTHENOGENESIS. 



On page 599, Mr. H. Reepen, the cor- 

 respondent in Germany, refers to my 

 controverting the absurd claim that the 

 term parthenogenesis may properly be 

 applied to the production of drone-bees, 

 and says my definition is " the sum of 

 ignorance." 



Mr. Reepen refers me to " the book 

 by Cowan, ' The Honey-Bee.' " It ap- 

 pears that he takes his belief from that 

 work. I have been a student in bee- 

 lore beginning anterior to Mr. Cowan's 

 writings, which I have read, and also 

 the criticisms on his excellent book. Mr. 

 Reepen would fain be " partly compan- 

 ion " of Mr. Cowan, but, unlike him, 

 Mr. R. controverts by weak diction, 

 while Mr. Cowan argues in a logical 

 sense. Mr. Reepen quotes Mr. Metzger, 

 and controverts his " statements," not 

 by offering any evidence or reasons, but 

 says /i-e is " deadly sure he (Mr. M.) is 

 not right." It does not appear that Mr. 

 R. is at all competent to speak on the 

 subject, yet he submits Ms " dead sure" 

 as a setting of the issue against the 

 proof and arguments of many who are 

 shown to be competent to handle the 

 case. 



Mr. Reepen attempts to teach me 

 "what is meant by parthenogenesis 

 woif-a-days," from which it is to be in- 

 ferred that lie knows that the meaning 

 of the term has undergone a change, or 

 changes. The term is not susceptible 

 of an issue being had as to its meaning, 

 nor rendered doubly in any way, but its 

 misapplication may be,' and has been, 

 very erroneously applied. 



The reproduction of certain species of 

 injects is absolutely different by reason 

 of a difference in the law of Nattjire gov- 

 erning the production. The reproduction 

 of drone-bees is in nowise the same as 

 that of certain other families of insects. 

 There is no such thing as " the successive 

 reproduction of procreating " drones 

 from unfertilized ovum, but such is the 

 case with certain species, to a limited 

 extent ; but all reproduction is depend- 

 ent upon semen. Some species repro- 

 duce for a time without renewal, or first 

 fertilization, but semen is Nature's law 

 of reproduction. The fact that the re- 

 production of drone-bees is governed by 



