4 Department Circular 33^, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture 



subfamily of Phoridae. Dr. J. M. Aldrich is of the opinion that it 

 is better left as a distinct family near the Phoridae. 



The synonymy of Braula is not complicated. Costa (13) gaye the 

 species the name Entomobis, evidently not knowing of the work of 

 Nitzsch. Bigot (8, vp. 227, 235) suggests that the nam.e of the genus 

 might more appropriately be Melitomyia, as better describing the 

 habit of the species, and later in the same paper the spelling Melitomya 

 occurs, but only the first spelling would stand in the synonym}'. 

 This latter name is derived from the Attic Greek name, melitta, for 

 the honeybee, as distinguished from the word melissa used by the 

 other Greeks. Since Bigot offers this merely as a proposed synonym 

 for Braula, it need not be discussed further. Fabricius {16) errone- 

 ously placed the bee louse in the genus Acarus, based on the figure 

 given by Reaumur. 



It is usually stated that there is but one species of Braula, but 

 Arnhart {3) , in an effort to explain the diversity of statements regard- 

 ing its developmental stages, raises the question whether there may 

 not be more than one species. Schmitz (34) has described a new 

 species, Braula Jcohli, on African honeybees, but no work has been 

 reported on its development. De Miranda-Rib eiro (27) gives a 

 half tone of the species found in Brazil, in which the head appears 

 to be relatively much narrower than in the European species, and 

 which may be another species; but this, after careful examination, 

 is denied by Lima (22) . Schmitz calls attention to the variation in 

 the number of teeth in the tarsal combs as described and figured by 

 various authors, but since at least some of these illustrations are 

 merely the result of careless drawing it is not well to depend too im- 

 plicitly on such evidence. The existence of several species of Braula 

 would scarcely be adequate to reconcile the variety of statements 

 which have appeared regarding its development. 



DEVELOPMENT OF BRAULA 



Until recently it was generally supposed that Braula is pupiparous, 

 although as early as 1858 Leuckart {21) pointed out essential differ- 

 ences between the organs of the female of this species and those of 

 Pupipara, and Miiggenburg {29), a pupil of Leuckart, states that 

 ^'Professor Leuckart believes, as he has kindly told me, that the 

 eggs of Braula have occasionally been found in the cells of the bee 

 comb." Skaife {35) described the eggs, larvae, and pupae of Braula 

 coeca and for the first time definitely showed that the species is not 

 pupiparous. His conclusions {35, p. ^8) are: 



Braula coeca is oviparous, not pupiparous, as was hitherto supposed. The 

 €ggs are deposited on the brood combs in the hives, hatch out into typical muscid 

 larvae which make their way into cells containing young bee larvae. The larvae 

 feed on food supplied to the brood by the nurse bees, and beyond robbing the 

 bee larvae of a little of their food do no harm. The larvae pupate inside the 

 cells beside the bee pupae; they emerge before the bees do and make their way 

 at once on to the bodies of their hosts. The adults feed on honey, probably 

 supplied to them by their hosts. 



An important addition to our knowledge of the breeding behavior 

 of this species was made by Arnhart {2), who shows that develop- 

 ment takes place on the under surface of the cappings of honey 

 in the brood combs in special wax tunnels prepared by the Braula 

 larvae- Miiggenburg states that he has never found a larva in the 



