AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. 



639 



kill the brood, and so prove themselves 

 the cause of the sickness." • 



To Dr. Shoenfeld was assigned the 

 task of conducting the experiments for 

 the solution of these problems. The 

 Doctor's first step was to procure a 

 specimen of foul-brood, which, on being 

 submitted to microscopic examination, 

 was found to have reached the spore 

 condition. To ascertain whether these 

 spores, when dry, would float in the 

 atmosphere, and to catch them if they 

 did, he constructed the following appara- 

 tus : On a smooth board he placed a 

 bell-glass, in the top of which was a 

 round hole ; in this he fixed a glass tube 

 two feet long. In a hole in the middle 

 of the board he fixed a similar tube ex- 

 tending downwards. In the outer ends 

 of these tubes he placed plugs of cotton 

 wool loosely, so as to permit the passage 

 of air, but tight enough to catch floating 

 particles in the atmosphere. 



Dr. Shoenfeld now placed the foul- 

 broody matter under the bell-glass, and 

 from time to time he exposed the glass 

 to the rays of the sun in his study win- 

 dow. A circulation of air was thus set 

 up, on the same principle that a stove 

 " draws " when the fire is lighted. In 

 about two weeks the foul-broody matter 

 had become quite dry ; every eight days 

 or so he removed the plug from the 

 upper tube and replaced it with a fresh 

 one. Portions of these plugs, taken 

 from the tube, were wetted with dis- 

 tilled water, when spores were found 

 adhering to the fibres. When a drop of 

 this water from the wool was examined 

 under the microscope, it showed consid- 

 erable quantities of spores. After ex- 

 aminations under the microscope, re- 

 peated so often that there could be no 

 possibility of mistake. Dr. Shoenfeld con- 

 sidered the first problem solved ; it being 

 without a doubt proven that the spores 

 from the dried-up matter of foul-brood 

 escape, and are borne away by the 

 atmosphere. 



To solve the second problem, Dr. 

 Shoenfeld fastened portions of the 

 infected wool over healthy brood, and 

 after some failures, caused by the bees 

 throwing out both the wool and the 

 larvae covered by it, he finally succeeded 

 beyond any doubt whatever in starting 

 the disease of foul-brood. So there can 

 be no longer any doubt that spores in- 

 troduced from without infect healthy 

 larvce, and in the end kill them. 



Dr. Shoenfeld says that when the 

 putrid matter in a foul-broody hive be- 

 comes dried up, there is not a doubt that 

 the spores must be driven out in large 

 quantities by the fanners at the en- 



trance. When air is driven out of a 

 hive, an equal quantity of outside air 

 rushes in, and if this ingoing air should 

 happen to contain spores from an adja- 

 cent hive, or elsewhere, we can see how 

 the disease might be started in a healthy 

 hive without the presence of either dead 

 brood, contaminated honey, or stray or 

 robbing bees. 



The above is only a very imperfectly 

 condensed description of Dr. Shoenfeld's 

 experiments, a full description of which 

 may be found on page 279 of the Ameri- 

 can Bee Journal for 1876. It is well 

 worth while going to some trouble to 

 borrow, if necessary, the November 

 number of the American Bee Journal 

 for that year, in order to be able to read 

 Dr. Shoenfeld's description in full. 



After reading all Mr. Robinson's 

 claims to priority of discovery, the reader 

 will now be more than surprised to 

 learn that, previous to the announce- 

 ment of his pretended discovery in 1882, 

 Mr. Robinson was aware of Dr. Shoen- 

 feld's experiments. Here is the proof : 

 In the Bee-Keepers' Exchange for 1882, 

 page 201, I find the following character- 

 istic sentence over Mr. C. J. Robinson's 

 name: "Shoenfeld, of Germany, was 

 the first who demonstrated by experi- 

 ment — infected healthy brood with foul, 

 and thus discovered that the poison (not 

 disease) is transmitted from hive to 

 hive." In the Kansas Bee-Keeper, for 

 the following October, he makes a simi- 

 lar statement. I have no space for 

 comments on Mr. Robinson's inconsis- 

 tencies. 



I should close here, but as I shall 

 probably not have another opportunity, 

 there are two statements in Mr. Robin- 

 son's letters which I wish to discuss, not 

 for the sake of refuting Mr. Robinson, 

 for I have now* done with that gentle- 

 man, but because I observe that the 

 same ideas have been advanced by other 

 writers. 



The first statement is that foul-brood 

 is not found to any extent anywhere ex- 

 cept in cold climates. It is an old ac- 

 quaintance in sunny Italy, as some who 

 have imported queens from that country 

 know to their cost. Mr. A. J. King had 

 to battle with it in Cuba. It is found in 

 Utah, California, Indiana and Texas, 

 and Mr. Muth says "it has made fearful 

 progress in the South." In Australia 

 and New Zealand there seems to be 

 more of it than almost anywhere els^. 



The second statement is that when 

 bee-keepers practice freeing their hives 

 of dead brood, foul-brood will be a thing 

 of the past. 



