646 



THE AMERICAl^ BEE JOURNAL. 



continuance of his error through all this investigation is a 

 mystery which 1 am quite unable perfectly to explain. 



Foul brood, then, Is a bacillus disease; and in these days, 

 when the ' germ tlieory ' is the question of questions amongst 

 patliologists and physielogists, it is extremely interesting for us 

 to note that science has lately shown that different species of 

 bacilli also cause consumption, cholera, typhoid, leprosy, and 

 many other diseases afHictiug the human family; whilst amongst 

 animals, glanders, splenic fever, sepitcajmia, etc., arise from a 

 similar cause. This particular bacillus seems not unlike 

 "Bacillus anthracis," which the researches of Pasteur have 

 lately brought so much before public attention. 



Since the force of conviction thus obliged me to contradict 

 the conclusions of Schonfeld, 1 felt it incumbent upon nie to 

 repeat his experiments; for it the disease be really a bacillus, 

 how could the communication of it to the larva; of "Musca 

 vomitoria " (blowfly) produce, as he says, micrococci in that 

 insect? I experimented on 60 specimens: Twenty were not 

 brought near foul-broody matter, 20 I attemptetl to infect with 

 bacilli in their active condition, and 20 by spores. At the end 

 of 34 hours 1 examined carefully two from each lot, but with no 

 apparent result. In 24 hours more, two again, but still failed 

 to see any evidence of disease. By a further delay of 24 hours, 

 one of those infected with coffee-colored matter was found to 

 have a pretty considerable number of active bacilli swimming 

 in its fluids. The non-infected showed many micrococci. This 

 was most completely confirmatory of my position; but how 

 could it be reconciled with Schonfeld's assertion, that he found 

 the dead flies full of micrococci. Had he searched further, he 

 would have discovered that dead blow-flies are generally full of 

 micrococci. They take in with their food (decomposing flesh 

 substances) swarms of septic micro-organisms, and these at 

 theirdeath multiply within them; but any observation carefully 

 made with a decent instrument, would show the immense 

 difference between these micrococci and the spore condition of 

 the bacillus. Schonfeld's last assertion, that by means of these 

 micrococci he established foul brood in the larvffi of the bee, and 

 lound these larvse containing innumerable micrococci, is past 

 my comprehension. The only solution, if we accept these 

 statements, that I can at all suggest, is, that the Brownian 

 movement of the molecular base of the fluids was mistaken for 

 micrococci; but this supposes most unskillful observation, and 

 possibly a very poor instrument, while, for anything that 1 

 know. Dr. Schonfeld may be possessed of ample skill and 

 elaborate appliances. 



I cannot refrain from expressing my conviction that it is much 

 to be regretted that so misleading an account of experiments, to 

 all appearances conclusive and complete, should have been 

 given to the aplcultural world. In their absence, it is hardly 

 possible that we could have all been in the dark so long. I find 

 m my notes that actually eight years ago I saw these bacilli, 

 and should very possibly, have not allowed the observation to 

 drop unless I had felt that the question of foul brood was a 

 sucked orange. Not a few others of us from a similar cause 

 have been kept from the path of discovery. 



But in yet another way I have striven to prove irrefragably 

 that the etiology 1 have given is correct. Taking a number of 

 well-developed drone-larvie from a healthy colony, their juices 

 were expressed and strained into two test tubes 3 inches long 

 and }^ inch wide. No. 1 now received a very minute quantity 

 of coffee-colored matter containing spores mostly, while No. 2 

 was infected with a trace of bacillus-containing fluid from a 

 larva just dead. These test tubes were each supported by a tin 

 slip having a hole in its centre through which the tube passed, 

 but the lip could not, and they were thus suspended, loosely 

 corked, between the frames of a colony, so that the exact 

 temperature for germination should be kept up. In twenty- 

 two hours, 1 found the spores had in large part disappeared, 

 and that bacilli in threads existed in considerable numbers, 

 while the bacilli added to No. 2, were increasing by division, 

 proving again that the spores produce bacilli so soon as they 

 pass into conditions for germination, the reverse process 

 obtaining when these conditions cease. 



For many years I have entertained the conviction that the 

 often-repeated statement that the disease affected the brood only, 

 was not merely not proved, but opposite to the evidence at our 

 command. This statement has been again and again made as 

 though it were as certain as that ' two straight Hues cannot 

 enclose a space,' but 1 am glad to note that Mr. Cowan has 

 shown that deeper insight which is the outcome of scientific 

 training as he merely says: ' foul brood does not seem to affect 

 the bees.' 



We may take from a colony two or three frames containing 

 5,000 larva; each, and it will continue to progress pretty much as 

 though it had lost nothing, while if foul urood attacks and kills, 

 say 1,000 of its grubs, it, as a rule, very perceptibly diminishes 

 in strength. The only explanation that appears is, that the 

 bees die with the disease, but that according to a necessary 

 instinct, they leave the hive and finish their course alone. I, 

 therefore, resolved to try to settle this point. Going to the 

 experimental colony, then In my possession, 1 noticed one bee 

 nearly dead, on its back, another hopping in abortive flights of 

 S or 4 inches, and presently found a third and fourth worn out 

 and too far gone to enter the hive again. The first bee con- 



tained nothing remarkable, but the second was almost an empty 

 shell, the air-sacs occupied nearly all the abdomen. Thestomacli 

 and colon were exceedingly small, and the amount of fluid 1 

 could obtain truly microscopic, but this was enough for the 

 microscope, which showed it at once as full of active bacilli. 

 The question was answered. The large consequences flowing 

 from it were clear. Swarms must no longer he stated as incap- 

 able of carrying the disease. Bees from a presumably clean 

 hive, if in an infected apiary, may carry the infection. And so, 

 to set all at rest, I placed the bee in spirits, and now offer it to 

 any microscopist of repute for examination; but this bee is not 

 needful, for Nos. 3 and 4 gave me similar results, and so have 

 some others since, making it clear that a very large proportion 

 of imago (adult) bees from a foul-broody colony, die of bacillus, 

 or, as Mr. Hooker remarked to me a few days ago, when talking 

 of this matter, 'In a foul-broody colony the candle is burning 

 at both ends.' 



This discovery is pregnant with consequences. As workers 

 and dronws are liable to it, why may not queens suffer from it? 

 Although I have had, of course, no opportunity of giving direct 

 evidence here, analogy says they must; and if so, may not those 

 who assert that imported queens have introduced foul brood be, 

 after all, right? In a case occurring to myself last year, a 

 Ligurian queen was successfully inserted and laid fairly, but 

 foul brood appeared and she died. At that time I did not 

 connect the circumstances, but they rise to my remembrance 

 and bring a doubt. Further, it the queen may be infected, why 

 not the egg? So far as 1 have been able to investigate, I believe 

 that it occasionally is. Some would say that the size of the egg 

 would forbid this, but these spores are relatively minute. The 

 egg is 1-14 of an inch long and 1-70 of an inch in cliameter, yet it 

 could contain above 100,000,000 bacilli in the spore condition: 

 the spore being no more in relation to the size of the egg than a 

 single drop would be in a cistern containing 1,.500 gallons of 

 water. The investigation of this point I must leave to others, 

 or to the future, as it may be necessary to infect one of my 

 colonies, and it would also appear to be necessary to infect the 

 queen to get the eggs in proper condition; but great caution will 

 have to be exercised as the sources of error are so numerous 

 and the manipulation so difficult, but an example in point is at 

 liand which shows that the idea is not improbably correct. 

 " Carpenter on the Microscope," page 37.5, says: 



" A most notable instance of such propagation is afforded by 

 the spread of the disease termed "Pebrine" among the silk- 

 worms of the south of France; the mortality caused by it being 

 estimated to produce a money-loss of from three to four 

 millions of sterling annually for several years following 1853, 

 when it first broke out with violence. It has been shown by 

 microscopic investigation that in silkworms strongly infected 

 with this disease, every tissue and organ in the body is swarm- 

 ing with minute cylindrical corpuscles about 1-6000 inch long; 

 and these even pass into the undeveloped eggs of the female 

 moth, so that the disease is hereditarily transmitted. Audit 

 has been further ascertained by the researches of Pasteur, that 

 these corpuscles are the active agents in the production of the 

 disease which is engendered in healthy silkworms by their 

 reception into their bodies, whilst if due precaution be taken 

 against their transmission, the malady may be completely ex- 

 terminated." 



A matter for consideration now presents itself of some mo- 

 ment. The name, foul brood, has been given under a misappre- 

 hension, and is manifestly inappropriate since the disease is 

 not specially of the brood at all. Popularly it may yet pass, for 

 the title is so crystallized into bee- literature that it would be 

 difScult to displace it, but scientifically it cannot be admitted. 

 I, therefore, with due respect claim the discoverer's privilege of 

 giving a name which shall representgenericaliy and specifically 

 what the disease really is. I suggested to the Hev. Herbert K. 

 Peel that he should be sponsor to a new name meaning Bacillus 

 of the hive. He consents, but his sponsorship will, I am sure, 

 in this instance, consist not in training and guarding, but in 

 pursuing to the death that terrible and nauseous pest hereinafter 

 to be called " Bacillus alvei." Let us now turn to our second 

 point. 



THE MEANS OF THE PROPAGATION OP THE DISEASE, 



Although the methods of propagation of this disease are in 

 all probability varied, and, as yet, not in detail fully understood, 

 it may be said without hesitation that the popular idea that 

 honey is the means by which it is carried from hive to hive, and 

 that mainly through robbing, is so far an error that only occa- 

 sionally and casually can honey convey it from colony to 

 colony. 1 have searched most carefully in honey in contiguity 

 with cells holding dead larvae, have examined samples from 

 colonies dying out in rottenness, inspected extracted honey 

 from terribly diseased colonies, and, yet, in no instance, have 

 I found a living bacillus, and never have been able to be sure 

 of discovering one in the spore condition; although it must be 

 admitted that the problem has its microscopic dilTiculties, be- 

 cause the stains used to make the bacilli apparent, attach 

 themselves very strongly to all pollen-grains and parts thereof, 

 and so somewhat interfere with examination. This is quite 

 what would have been anticipated, because honey by its very 

 viscosity is somewhat antiseptic, and the rapid movement of 



