786 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL^ 



these remaius must be visible to the un- 

 aided eye, because Mr. MeEvoy does not 

 use the microscope ; that in his opinion 

 would be science, and therefore some- 

 thing to be avoided. My own observa- 

 tions, confirmed, I believe, by the obser- 

 vations of thousands of other bee-keep- 

 ers, show, that so far as can be seen by 

 the naked eye, cells are not used by the 

 queen until they have been thoroughly 

 cleaned and polished by the workers. I 

 don't believe Mr. McEvoy, or any one 

 else, ever saw cells occupied with eggs, 

 while they were still partially filled with 

 decomposed brood. 



But in support of this theory, Mr. 

 McEvoy claims to have produced a 

 strong chain of evidence which " any 

 judge on the bench would accept, and 

 charge the jury to believe." This "chain 

 of evidence" consists of seven cases in 

 which dead brood was followed by foul 

 brood. Of these he says the case of Mr. 

 C. J. Robinson, described on page 726 

 of the American Bee Joubnal for 

 1890, and in the Bee-Keepers'' Exchange 

 for August, 1882, "is a real test case." 

 The circumstances, in short, are these : 



Three combs, containing unsealed 

 larvae, were unintentionally exposed in 

 Mr. Robinson's yard, until the brood 

 died. When found they were wrapped 

 in an old blanket, and placed on the 

 south side of a building for warmth, 

 where they remained for two months, 

 the blanket being sprinkled with water 

 from time to time to keep the combs 

 moist. At the end of this time, some 

 matter from the decomposed larvae in 

 these combs was smeared over unsealed 

 larvae in a comb just taken from a 

 healthy colony. This comb was then 

 enclosed in a wire-cloth cage, and re- 

 turned to the hive, the result being that 

 foul brood was developed. 



Now it seems to have escaped Mr. 

 McEvoy's notice that when Mr. Robin- 

 son found these three combs, he says the 

 decomposition in the larvae was that of 

 foul brood. When the foul brood mat- 

 ter was placed on living larvae in the 

 caged comb, the disease was propagated 

 as a matter of course. Lest any one 

 should have doubts as to what Mr. Rob- 

 inson believed he saw, I give his direc- 

 tions for producing foul brood at will, 

 based on the above experiment, and pub- 

 lished in the Kansas Bee-Keeper for 

 October, 1882, as follows : 



" Remove three frames or cards of 

 brood, in the different stages, from the 

 brood-nest. Let the combs face together, 

 and keep them in a moist, warm atmos- 

 phere, such as favors fermentative 



putrefaction, and in due time the putrid 

 mass will be true foul brood." 



Such, then, is the "real test case " for 

 which Mr. McEvoy thanked Mr. Robin- 

 son, in writing, for " the best article on 

 foul brood ever written." Instead of 

 supporting his theory, it proves that 

 bacillus alvei may thrive in dead brood 

 outside of the hive, where there a»e no 

 living grubs to eat the remains of de- 

 composed larvae. If the accuracy of 

 Mr. Robinson's observations is ques- 

 tioned, there are equally strong grounds 

 for believing that he mistook brood 

 which died of starvation in the caged 

 comb, as evidence of foul brood. No 

 matter which view is adopted, Mr. Mc- 

 Evoy's theory gains no support from 

 Mr. Robinson's case. 



It is possible Mr. Robinson may have 

 • had true foul brood in those three 

 combs. The dead brood furnished the 

 kind of, nutriment required, and the re- 

 quisite heat and moisture were present. 

 The only other essential factor is the 

 germ. That the germs of foul brood do 

 float in the air, like motes in a sunbeam, 

 has been proven experimentally by 

 Schonfeld. Being exceeding light, they 

 may be carried by winds from one 

 locality to another, many miles distant, 

 just as other seeds are distributed. 

 Although it is said there are places 

 where the air is so free from germs that 

 carcases do not putrefy, it is true, as a 

 general rule, that putrefactive germs 

 are present everywhere. It is just as 

 well for us that the disease-producing 

 germs are not so plentiful. Sometimes 

 they are present, and at other times 

 they are not. Although Mr. Robinson 

 believes he can produce foul brood at 

 will, he might try several times and fail, 

 as did Mr. D. A. Jones, for want of 

 germs. 



Keen observers who have had experi- 

 ence, or who have learned from the ex- 

 perience of others, can discriminate be- 

 tween the decomposition produced in a 

 larva by bacillus alvei, and that pro- 

 duced by bacterium termo. Whether 

 Mr. Robinson can do so or not, I have 

 no means of knowing. It is a pity Mr. 

 Robinson did not send some of the mat- 

 ter from those three combs to a bacteriol- 

 ogist to have the microbe identified for 

 the benefit of those engaged in the in- 

 dustry. 



The remaining six cases in Mr. Mc- 

 Evoy's "chain," where dead brood in the 

 hive was followed by foul brood, are, 

 every one, reasonably accounted for in 

 the same way as Mr. Robinson's. There 

 were present the moist dead brood, and 

 sufficient heat for the growth of the 



