2 BULLETIN 810, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



sistance of Bacillus pluton to heat, drying, sunlight, fermentation, 

 and disinfectants; the effect of the disease on the colony and on the 

 apiary ; and the transmission, diagnosis, and prognosis of the disease. 

 Work directly on the treatment of the disease has not been attempted 

 by the writer. Naturally, however, any treatment that is devised, if it 

 is to be efficient and at the same time economical, must be based upon 

 results obtained from the solution of such problems as those which 

 have received attention in these studies. 



Results obtained from a study of the disease in the laboratory and 

 in the experimental apiary form the basis of the discussions contained 

 in the present paper. Since the disease encountered in nature is very 

 similar to the one produced by artificial inoculation, the importance 

 of the studies is at once evident. 



The paper ^ will be of interest, it is believed, not only to the apiarist 

 who may wish to apply the facts here determined in the pursuit of 

 his profession, but also to the investigator whose desire primarily is 

 a further study of the disease. 



NAME OF THE DISEASE 



The term " f oulbrood " was quite generally used in the past, as it 

 still frequently is, for the two infectious diseases now known in 

 America as European foulbrood and American foulbrood. In 1885 

 when Cheshire and, Cheyne (4) in England made their studies on 

 foulbrood and described Bacillus alvei, evidently they were not con- 

 vinced that there were two distinct diseases that were being called 

 by the one name foulbrood. The disease studied by them is the one 

 which is the subject of discussion in the present paper. In the names 

 for the two diseases it will be observed that the word " foulbrood " is 

 retained in both instances. To this " European " is added for the 

 disease on which early laboratory studies were made by these Euro- 

 peans (Cheshire and Cheyne). 



Dr. William R. Howard (6), of Texas, in 1900, worked for a brief 

 period with this disease, reached the conclusion that it was a new one, 

 and referred to it by the names "New York bee disease," or "black 

 brood." Work by Moore and White (11) in 1902 showed that the 

 disease was not new, but was the foulbrood studied by Cheshire and 

 Cheyne (4). The names " New York bee disease," or " black brood," 

 therefore, were superfluous, and as their use would have added to the 

 confusion that already existed they were discarded. Beekeepers, ento- 

 mologists, and pathologists, as a rule, are more or less familiar with 

 the terms " foulbrood " and " Bacillus alveiy Usually, however, the 

 ropy foulbrood — American foulbrood — is the one that is thought of, 



^The present studies are similar to those made by the writer on sacbrood (17), Nosema- 

 disease (18), and American foulbrood (19). A reference to these papers may be found 

 helpful where the discussions in the present one are especially brief. The investigations 

 were completed in September, 1916, and the paper wa& submitted for publication in 

 October, 1918. 



