PBE8ENT BTATUS OF [NVE8TIGATTON OF BEE DI9EA8ES. 25 



the fungus multiplies, find gives an elaborate calculatl f the number thai 



might be found In a cell containing n deceased larva 



As mighl have been expected, Preuss's statemenl aroused considerable dla 

 cussion ;ii the meeting of German bee-keepers' ;t short while after the publication 

 of his paper. 



Vogel (Bienen Zeitung, Nos. 21 and 22) expressed < d >t 1 1 >i aa to whether 

 C. alvearis was the real cause < f foul brood or only ;i consequence of the disease, 

 i. in on tln> whole agreed with Preuss. 



Wiegand (Bienen Zeitung, Nos. 21 and 22) agreed with Preuss's theory, and 

 in giving his experience said thai the disease was Introduced into his apiary 

 through honey broughl from a distance. 



Pollman (Bienen Zeitung, Nos. 21 and 22) believed thai the disease was intro 

 duced by feeding honey from Havannam, where, when extracting the honey, 

 both brood and honeycomb were mashed up and the honey pressed out. 



Doctor Leuekhart (Bienen Zeitung, Nos. L'l and 22) agreed with those who 

 thoughl the disease due to a fungus, bu1 discredited the supposition thai it was 

 the same as the fermentation fungus mentioned by Preuss, and rather thoughl 

 it was related to the silkworm fungus and thai most of the brood dis< 

 ending in death were called "foul brood," while they were really something 

 else, lie believed thai the fungus was present in the eggs of the queen when 

 laid. 



Geilen (Bienen Zeitung, Nos. 21 and 22) believed thai the disease came from 

 the putrefying remains of animal bodies upon which the bees alighted. 



Muhlfeld (Bienen Zeitung, 1869, No. :*. » again, in 1869, presented his former 

 views and also those of Preuss and gave directions for maintaining the health 

 of bees, lie recommended the boiling of the honey and a use el' carbolic acid 

 in the strength of 1 : 100, or permanganate of potash 1 : 300, as disinfectants. 



Lambrechl (Bienen Zeitung, 1870, No. 2.) thought that foul brood was caused 

 by fermentation of the bee bread. 



Ilallier (Bienen Zeitung, 1870, No. 2) considered it no specific disease, but 

 thoughl it was probably produced by different fungi. 



Cornallia (Bienen Zeitung, 1870, No. 5) proved contrary to the above and 

 found a fungus which he thought developed foul brood. He called it Grypto- 

 eoccus alvearis and used carbolic acid, potassium permag, and lime water as 

 disinfectants. 



Fisher (Bienen Zeitung, 1871, pp. 105-125) advanced a new foul-brood theory 

 in 1871, which somewhat follows the view of Liebig regarding the silkworm 

 disease and plant diseases. According to this theory, the predisposing cause 

 was insufficient nourishment, especially short -tores for wither and spring. 

 Shortage of pollen supply was the nexl cause. Fisher tried to prove his views 

 by the practical experience of bee keepers and explained that the first resull of 

 repeated and continued feeding was an increase in the production of bees; and 

 .i coiTsequenl disproportion between breed and brood feeders arose, which should 

 be looked upon as another cause of foul brood. The disease, be said, mighl be 

 lessened or exterminated 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 <'\' a quantitative dearth of nourishment and a consequent 

 degeneration of the bees. The appearance of fungus growths was only a sec- 

 ondary matter. 



Schonfeld (Bienen Zeitung, 1874, pp. 201 and 261) infected several hives 

 with foul brood, and when it hail fully developed he took a comb of the rotten 

 br 1 to the Physiological Institute at Breslau and had it submitted to a micro- 

 scopical examination by Doctors Cohn and Eidam (Bienen Zeitung, 1874, pp. 201 



