1907 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE. 



465 



C, asking him if he would like to reply to it. 

 This he does in the following statement. 



Dear Mr. Boot:— I notice that the writer of the edi- 

 torial in (luestion says that " European foul brood," 

 or " black brood," is of recent occurrence in Eoyland. 

 I should hesitate very much in taking exception to a 

 bee-keeper of the high standint? of Mr. Thomas Wm. 

 Cowan ; but in Cheshire's portion of the paper on 

 " Foul Brood " in the Jourmtl of the Royal Microscop- 

 ical Society, 1885, part of the description fits "black 

 brood " much better than it does the ropy type of dis- 

 ease which we call " American " foul brood. Cheyne, 

 who really did the work, describes the one sample 

 used by him as watery, which does not apply very 

 well to the ropy type of the malady. 



Mr. Cowan says, "There are two forms of foul 

 brood, a mild and a virulent one, . ." but we are not 

 told in any of the scientific literature with which I am 

 familiar in which one of these we are to look for Ba- 

 cillus aivei. nor do I know of any ground for the be- 

 lief that the two diseases are but varieties of " foul 

 brood caused by one specific bacillus. 



Attention is also drawn to the fact that American 

 foul brood is of much more general occurrence than 

 European foul brood, a fact which no person will be 

 inclined to call in question. 



The possibility that Dr. White has cultivated a 

 non-pathotrenic saprophytic bacterium under the sup- 

 position that it is the pathogenic bacillus of American 

 foul brood is suggested; but since Dr. White is the 

 first and only bacteriologist who has attempted to in- 

 vestigate the non-pathogenic micro-organisms of the 

 apiary, this may well be considered a criticism of 

 small weight. Other investigators have been satis- 

 fied to leave the normal invisible flora of the apiary 

 unknown, and we are justified in the belief that on 

 this very rock have they been shipwrecked. At any 

 rate. Dr. White expresses the belief that the results 

 of Howard, Mackenzie, and Harrison are false be- 

 cause they did no work in non-v>uthogenic forms. 



According to Dr. White, Jlacilliis larvce is found 

 universally in diseased larvte of American foul brood, 

 and in not a single instance has he found it in the nu- 

 merous normal combs which he has examined, nor 

 has it been found on healthy adult bees or in the in- 

 testine of normal adults. He assures us that it is 

 universally present in every case of American foul 

 brood examined by him since he first used the media 

 made of bee larvse, and never present in any of the 

 normal material examined. This to a bacteriologist 

 or even to a layman is rather good evidence of the 

 pathogenic nature of the bacillus in question. 



The principal criticism in Mr. Cowan's editorial, I 

 shall quote: "It appears to us that the most impor- 

 tant test has been omitted; and until that has been 

 made successfully our judgment must be suspended. 

 The test we allude to is to prove that the disease can 

 be reproduced in healthy brood from a pure culture of 

 Dr. White's Bacillus larvce." This test has never 

 been made by Dr. White, and the desirability of such 

 a test is, of course, evident. The criticism is, how- 

 ever, somewhat misleading, for the reader might be 

 led to the belief that such a test is usually applied in 

 the study of micro-organisms supposed to be path- 

 ogenic. I believe I am safe in saying that this test 

 can not be applied in many cases, nor is it considered 

 necessary in all cases by bacteriologists. The uni- 

 form occurrence of a specific micro-organism in dis- 

 ease, and its uniform absence in normal conditions, 

 while not as absolute as the Koch test referred to, is 

 proof of the greatest value. Bacillus larvce grows only 

 in a special medium, and there are many difficulties 

 met with in the preparation of the cultures. A careful 

 reading of Dr. White's paper will show that he speci- 

 fies merely the fact that Bacillus larr<e is uniformly 

 present, and lays no claim to having made the test 

 called for by Mr. Cowan. The author further says, 

 " We know that this was done by Mr. Cheshire with 

 Bacillus alcei," but we are not told what the effect on 

 ihe brood was, it being assumed by Mr. Cheshire all 

 through his work that there is but one disease of the 

 brood in the class which he calls "foul brood." I, 

 therefore, can not agree in the belief that " until this 

 has been done the investigations and the conclusions 

 arrived at are of very little value so far as solving the 

 question is concerned." 



While I have undertaken to defend Dr. White's 

 work in the face of Mr. Cowan's criticism, I do not 

 wish to be understood as believing that this whole 

 subject is now complete. On the contrary, I can not 

 but believe that the field is just opening up. and much 

 more bacteriological work must be done before we 

 are even on a good working basis. We now have a 



good start, and I hope the work may be continued at 

 no late date. E, F. Phillips. 



Washington, D. C, Feb. 21. 1907. 



Mr. Abram Titoff, for many years a bee-keep- 

 er in Russia, came to America to study bee- 

 keeping. He spent about a year and a half 

 at Medina, and during that time he so thor- 

 oughly acquired the English language (he 

 could not speak a word of it when he came 

 here) that he delivered an offhand address be- 

 fore the National Bee-keepers' Association in 

 St. Louis in 1904, While Mr. Titoff was here 

 he had an opportunity to see samples of both 

 black and foul brood; and during his resi- 

 dence in California he doubtless has made the 

 matter a further study. He raises a decided 

 protest against calling black and foul brood, 

 American and European foul brood, in the 

 following language: 



It seems that some Americans are under a wrong 

 impression concerning foul brood in Europe. Both 

 kinds — the old-fashioned (American) foul brood, and 

 the black brood (European) are found there, where 

 they have the same peculiarity and effects that they 

 do in this country. I have seen hundreds of cases of 

 both kinds of the disease in Russia. The black brood 

 (European 'r) is not very prevalent in Russia; but foul 

 brood (American as you call it) is quite common, and 

 does much damage to the apiaries. 



Neither disease is peculiar to America; and although 

 American bee-keepers might in time become accus- 

 tomed to the inexact terms, " European " and "Amer- 

 ican," readily distinguishing between them, these 

 terms would always be confusing to a European. To 

 distinguish clearly between these two types of dis- 

 ease I would suggest the use of more scientific terms 

 —such as those employed in Russia. There the black 

 brood is spoken of as the ' benign " foul brood. What 

 is here known as the " American " is called the " ma- 

 lign " foul brood. I do not know what adjectives 

 could be better adopted here in this country; but I am 

 thoroughly convinced that it is a mistake to call one 

 kind " European " and the other " American." 



Los Angeles, Cal., Feb. 13. Abram Titoff. 



To correct a misapprehension on the part 

 of Mr. Titoff we may state that neither Dr. 

 Phillips nor Dr. White has ever claimed that 

 American foul brood was peculiar only to 

 America, and the European to Europe. On 

 the contrary, their published statements go to 

 show that l)oth kinds are found in both con- 

 tinents; but they gave the name "European" 

 to black brood because Cheyne and Che- 

 shire, both Europeans, were the first to dis- 

 cover the bacillus that caused it. They ap- 

 plied the name "Amei'ican" to foul brood in 

 this country because, up until within a few 

 yeai"s, it was the only brood disease of a con- 

 tagious character known here, and because 

 an American first discovered its bacillus. 



The question, after all, simmers itself down 

 to this: //'there are two distinct brood dis- 

 eases, it is impoi'tant that legislation that ap- 

 plies to foul brood may apply to both diseases 

 hei'e under consideration. If both diseases 

 were from the same microscopic form of life 

 the difficulty might be overcome by calling 

 one "benign" and the other "malign" foul 

 brood. But Dr. White declares, and exter- 

 nal evidence seems to l)ear out the assei'tion, 

 that the two disea.ses are entirely distinct. 

 If this is true it is not a case like varioloid and 

 smallpox, nor even a mild and virulent form 

 of foul brood l)oth from the same microbe, but 

 two separate diseases each originating from 

 a distinct germ. 



