12 Circular 218, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. 



Table 4. — The distribution of Nose ma disease, by States. 



Tennessee 2 



Texas l 



Utah 1 



Vermont 1 



Virginia 1 



"Washington 9 



West Virginia 2 



Wisconsin 5 



Wyoming 1 



Total. 



California 9 Michigan 14 



Colorado 2 Minnesota 2 



Connecticut 6 Missouri 1 



Florida 4 j Nebraska 1 



Georgia 2 New Jersey 3 



Idaho * 2 | New York 21 



Illinois 6 North Carolina 4 



Indiana 3 Ohio 9 



Iowa 5 J Oregon 6 



Kansas 4 I Pennsylvania 3 



Kentucky 2 Rhode Island 1 



Massachusetts 2 I South Dakota 1 



The listing of these records by States fails to show the distribution 

 by beekeeping regions. The clover region has furnished far more 

 samples than any other. The alfalfa region shows comparatively 

 little of the disease, while the sage and willow-herb regions of the West, 

 in proportion to their sizes, show as much of the disease as does the 

 clover region. The Southeastern States show few records. 



The time of the year at which the samples have reached the labora- 

 tory from the various regions might throw some light on the character 

 of the disease, as is the case with the records of European foulbrood. 

 Because of the scant number of records, nothing definite can be learned 

 from such an examination, but it seems probable that outbreaks of 

 the disease may be expected more commonly in the Southern States 

 during the winter and early spring. No samples have been received 

 from this region during late summer. This suggests a relationship 

 between wintering and Nosema disease. 



Prevention of spread. — While it would seem possible for Nosema apis 

 to remain virulent in honey for a short time, the danger of introducing 

 Nosema disease to an apiary through honey as a carrier seems slight, 

 especially in view of the fact that the organism is destroyed by the 

 amount of heat to which honey is usually exposed in the process of 

 bottling. The most probable means of distributing the organism to 

 new locations would seem to be through the shipment of living bees. 

 Obviously any precautions taken against the introduction of Isle of 

 Wight disease by the restriction or prohibition of the importation of 

 living adult bees would seem to be adequate to keep out any further 

 introduction of Nosema disease, but the present wide distribution of 

 Nosema disease, and especially its mild character, would seem to 

 make unnecessary any quarantine measures against it alone. 



ARSENICAL POISONING. 



Most of the samples that have been received at the Bureau of 

 Entomology have not been examined for the presence of arsenic, but 

 in a few instances, where the history of the case suggested this as a 

 possible cause of the trouble, examinations have been made through 

 the courtesy of the Bureau of Chemistry. It is not the purpose of 



