\.$ MEETING OF INSPECTORS OF APIARIES. 



odor of stale, but not ammoniacal urine, or what may be better described as a 

 shrimpy smell; and this peculiar odor has been found by Cheshire to be dis- 

 tinctive of diseased larvae. Klamann and Howard both state that a peculiar 

 odor resembling thai of the diseased larvae may ho noticed in artificial cultures. 



The effects Of desiccation. — I have already noticed, under the head of " Rela- 

 tion to free oxygen," thai the spores of B. alr< i have considerable vitality in 

 withstanding desiccation. .My experiments prove conclusively that the spores 

 are extremely hard to kill by desiccation and in this respect resemble those of 

 anthrax, which are known to resist thorough desiccation for a number of years. 

 One experimenl which showed this characteristic was as follows: An agar 

 plate completely covered with a typical growth of B. aJr>i was allowed to dry 

 out completely, and was left exposed to the ordinary light of the room for seven 

 months, and at the end of that time, a portion of the film was scraped off with 

 a knife, placed on suitable medium and incubated, with the result that a typical 

 growth immediately ensued. 



Spores on cover glasses were exposed to September sunlight (latitude 1" I 

 for varying periods of time, and growth occurred after four. six. and seven 

 hours' exposure. The age of the spores varied from five days to eighteen 

 months; and spores three months old were not killed by seven hours* exposure. 



From the symptoms given in this paper the disease with which 

 Professor Harrison worked was doubtless American foul brood. 

 From the discussion of geographical distribution this i> also evi- 

 dent, for he says: "I have examined diseased larva? from Canada, 

 from Europe, * * * Cuba, and thirteen States of the Union, 

 ranging from Xew York to California and from Michigan 

 to Florida." American foul brood is thus widely distributed, but 

 from all these specimens Professor Harrison obtained a bacillus 

 which he called Bacillus alvei. Since Ave now know that Bacillus 

 alvei is found in European foul brood and not in American foul 

 brood, it is evident enough that the germ must have been another 

 bacillus. European foul brood, as far as the author is able to learn. 

 is not found in Canada nor Cuba, and, although now found in 

 severa] States in the northeastern United States and spreading, is 

 not, as Professor Harrison would have us believe, widely distributed 

 in the United States. 



I low can this be accounted for? The only way open seems to be 

 in the identification of the bacillus. I do not feel qualified to pass 

 judgment on the accuracy of the description of Professor Harrison, 

 but the matter lias been referred to Doctor White, and he azures 

 me that the description just quoted fits the bacillus which is 

 described as Bacillus .1 a- well as it does Bacillus alvei. If this is 

 true, we can only conclude that Professor Harrison, not knowing of 

 the existence of two diseases, made a serious error in his identi- 

 fication. In no place does he -peak of any difficulty in obtaining 

 cultures from American foul brood. For comparison, Doctor White's 

 description of Bacillus A (possibly B. mesentericus) is here quoted. 



