AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



347 



creep out of the cells, all because enough 

 bees could not cover the brood to keep 

 it at the proper temperature. 



The best apiary I have visited this 

 season had many of the combs spaced as 

 far as 1% inches from center to center. 

 I admitted at once that the bees were 

 stronger and more hardy than mine — at 

 least a part of mine — and the hives were 

 so heavy that it required a man of con- 

 siderable muscle to lift one, 



I estimated the amount of honey at To 

 pounds, on the average, to each colony, 

 in the brood-chamber, exclusive of sur- 

 plus. Let us give our bees plenty of 

 room and air, and allow them to work as 

 instinct directs them, and dead brood, 

 foul-brood, and the like, will be things 

 of the past. 



State Line, Ind. 



Discovery of tie Orliin of Foul-Brooil, 



C. J. ROBINSON. 



On page 219, under the ominous head- 

 ing, "Errors Respecting Foul-Brood 

 Exposed," Mr. Cornell attacks my claim 

 of priority of discovering that foul-brood 

 is the result of bacteria, and he fain 

 would rule me out peremptorily. He 

 denies my claim of priority, stating that 

 Dr. Cohn was the first who discovered 

 bacteria in foul-brood. If it is true that 

 Dr. Cohn is entitled to "the honor of 

 priority of discovery," I desire to rever- 

 ence and applaud him as a public bene- 

 factor. 



According to Mr. Cornell, Dr. Cohn 

 made the alleged discovery in 1874. 

 This date corresponds with the epoch of 

 the craze over bacteria at the time of its 

 advent, and Dr. Cohn — and probably 

 other microscopists — looked for bacteria 

 in samples of putrid brood, supposed to 

 be foul-brood. Dr. Cohn espied minute 

 forms of life in the samples when under 

 the lens, and jumped to the conclusion 

 that what he " discovered " was bacteria, 

 and that, of course, the bacteria caused 

 foul-brood. 



Upon this discovery he based the hy- 

 pothesis he recorded, which was alluded 

 to as quoted by Mr. Corneil. Dr. Cohn's 

 discovery afforded no clue to a solution 

 of the problem, and nothing came of it. 

 Prior to 1882, no writer "respecting 

 foul-brood," in America, or elsewhere, 

 mentioned that foul-brood is caused by 

 germs. Mr. Cheshire, who, presumably, 

 has for many years been cognizant of all 

 the discoveries in Europe respecting 

 foul-brood, takes to himself, inferen- 

 tially, the credit of discovering, in 1870, 



the foul-brood germ, and named the 

 family hacillus alvei. This circumstance 

 is conclusive evidence that Dr. Cohn is 

 not entitled to the honor of priority, 

 even in far-off Europe. 



In 1882 — eight years previous to the 

 publication by Mr. Cheshire of his expe- 

 rience respecting foul-brood — I made the 

 announcment, through bee-periodicals, 

 that I had, by actual experiment, discov- 

 ered that foul-brood virus was micro-or- 

 ganisms, which tjreiv from spoi'es, and 

 that the microbes might orit/i?iaic outside 

 of or within a colony. 



Dr. Cohn claimed to have discovered 

 very minute germs in dead brood. Forms 

 of life can be discovered in all decom- 

 posing brood, and in all putrefying sub- 

 stances. Dr. Cohn did not make experi- 

 ments that demonstrated whether the 

 germs that he espied under the lens were 

 such as originate foul-brood by conta- 

 gion. Therefore, his reported discovery 

 serves for naught, other than to furnish 

 Mr. Corneil with manna while wandering 

 in the wilderness of "confusion," which 

 he credits me with " creating." 



Mr. Corneil declares that I am in error 

 "respecting fermentation." Space is 

 too valuable to discuss his labored effort 

 to impeach my statements. Suffice it to 

 say, that I have not disagreed with any 

 of the acknowledged scientists "respect- 

 ing " fermentation. There can be no 

 real satisfaction in debating with one 

 who introduces a criticism with the 

 statement that " instead of advancing 

 my own opinions (presumedly having no 

 experimental knowledge to base opinions 

 on), I shall quote" what I can pick up 

 from Dr. and Prof. So-and-so, " who are 

 recognized authority" — equal to Prof. 

 Wiley, and whose authority might pan 

 out in samples like "the Wiley lie." It 

 cannot even be inferred from Mr. Cor- 

 nell's writings, that he ever had a case 

 of foul-brood, or that he ever saw a case 

 of it. 



It will be observed that Mr. Corneil 

 borrows all of the weapons used in his 

 attack, and imports all of the ammuni- 

 tion fired at my statements. If Dr. 

 Cohn published the alleged discovery in 

 1874, why, in the name of humanity to 

 the bee-keeping world, and as an apostle 

 of that new "Nazereth," proclaim the 

 tidings delivered by Dr. Cohn, whom you 

 represent as the immaculate? Mr. Cor- 

 neil admits that my statements are cor- 

 rect, so far as they relate to my having 

 a case of foul-brood propagated, but he 

 flatly disputes my explanation, and inter- 

 poses his version, assuming to decide 

 peremptorily that he is unquestionably 

 competent to solve the problem which I 



