the sunken cap. With a microscope magoifying 600 diameters, he found 

 small dust like bodies -with a diameter of ^Jjy m. m. belonging to the genus 

 Cryptococcus (Kutzig) and called the specific form alvearia, likened it to the 

 fermentation fungus {Cryptococcus fermentum) and thought that the last germ 

 gained access to the young bee and changed to Cryptococcus alvearia. He 

 noticr s that many experts lay the cause of the disease to fermenting food but 

 the larvae are easily contaminated by the fermentation fungus which is always 

 present in the air. He also mentions the enormous rapidity with which the 

 fungus multiplies and gives an elaborate calculation of the number that might 

 be found in a cell containing a deceased larva. 



As might have been expected, Freuss's statement aroused considerable 

 discussion at the meeting of German bee-keepers, a short while after the pub- 

 lication of his paper. 



Vogel (17) expressed doubt as to whether C. alvearis was the real cause 

 of foul brood or only a consequence of the disease, but on the whole agreed 

 with Prenss. 



Wiegand (17) agreed with Preusa'a theory, and in giving his experience 

 said that the disease was introduced into his apiary through honey brought 

 from a distance. 



Pollman (17) believed that the disease was introduced by feeding honey 

 from Havanna, where, when extracting the honey, both brood and honeycomb 

 were mashed up and the honey pressed out. 



Dr. Lenckhart (17) agreed with those who thought the disease due to a fun- 

 gus, but discredited the supposition that it was the same as the fermentation 

 fungus mentioned by Pienss, and rather thought it w»s related to the silk 

 worm fungus and that most of the brood diseases ending in death were called 

 " foul brood " while they were really something else. He believed that the 

 fungus was present in the eggs of the queen when laid. 



Geilen (17) believed that the disease came from the putrefying remains 

 of animal bodies, upon which the bees alighted. 



Miihlfeld (18) again in 1869, presented his former views, and also those of 

 Preuss's and gave directions for maintaining the health of bees. He recom- 

 mended the boiling of the honey, and a use ot carbolic acid in the strength of 

 1:100 or permanganate of potash 1:300 as disinfectants. 



Lambrecht (19) thought that foul brood was caused by the fermentation 

 of the bee bread. 



Hallier (19) considered it no specific disease, but thought it was probably 

 produced by different fungi. 



Cornallia (20) proved contrary to the above and found a fungus, which 

 he thought developed foul brood. He called it Cryptococcus alveaxis and used 

 carbolic acid, potassium permag. , and lime water as disinfectants. 



Fisher (21) advanced a new foul brood theory in 1871, which somewhat 

 follows the view of Liebeg regarding the silk worm disease and plant diseases. 

 According to this theory, the predisposing cause was insufficient nourishment, 

 especially short stores for winter and spring. Shortage of pollen supply was 

 the next cause. Fisher tried to prove his views by the practical experience 

 of bee keepers and explained that the first result of repeated and continued 

 feeding was an increase in the production of bees ; and a couBequent dispro- 

 portion between brood and brood feeders arose, which should be looked upon 

 asanother cauaeof foul brood. Thedisea8e,hesaid,mightbelessenedorextermin- 

 ated by applying means to reduce the production of brood, as the removing of 

 the queen and the area which the brood occupied. Foul brood is probably 

 the cause of a quantitative dearth of nourishment and a consequent degenera- 



