66 HISTORICAL NOTES ON BEE DISEASES. 
2. The two kinds of foul brood are easily distinguished from each other in the dried 
remains of the larve. That form of the disease in which Bacillus alvei is found exhibits 
an offensively smelling residue in which ‘microscopically are found rods 2 y» in 
length, together with numerous spores. The larval remains in which are found the 
organism that is difficult to cultivate are almost odorless, and on microscopic exami- 
nation spores 15 » in length are recognized, but no rods. 
3. Occasionally other bacteria which stand in a certain relationship to the so-called 
foul-brood germs obtain local significance as the cause of foul brood. Lambotte’s 
view, on the other hand, that the potato bacillus (B. mesentericus vulgaius) is to be 
considered the cause of foul brood is yet without demonstration. 
4. In choosing the methods for eradication of the disease, the fact that there are at 
least two kinds of foul-brood bacteria must be taken into consideration. 
5. In every case a certain amount of knowledge of the bacteria in question is desired, 
not only from the scientific but from the practical point of view as well. . 
Some of the interesting facts noted in Burri’s paper might be 
summarized as follows: 
1. He recognizes two forms of foul brood. 
2. He refers to the ropy type of foul brood (American foul brood) 
as the non-smelling form of the disease, and to European foul brood 
as the foul-smelling form. 
3. He did not obtain a growth of the spores present in American 
foul brood either on the media ordinarily used in the laboratory or 
on a special medium to which cooked bee larvee were added. 
4. He studied the morphology of the organisms present. in the 
foul-brood larvee in a manner similar to that followed by Cheshire 
(p719).- 
5. He expressed doubt concerning the accuracy of the results — 
reported by Lambotte. 
6. In one disease (probably European foul brood) he obtained 
Bacillus alvei in very large numbers. 
7. He found a condition to which he referred as sour brood, and 
with it he found associated a species to which he referred as sour- 
brood bacteria. 
8. In his investigations he says foul brood always accompanied 
sour brood. 
WHITE, JANUARY 14, 1905. 
The work on bee diseases was continued during the year 1904 in 
New York State and was followed by another report.t. The work 
of the year was devoted to the diagnosis of the brood diseases in the 
laboratory; to a study of ‘‘foul brood”? (European foul brood) and 
‘“X” brood (American foul brood); and to a study of palsy or paral- 
ysis in bees. 
The similarity that exists between samples of the different brood 
diseases was observed to be so marked at times that a diagnosis of a 
condition often could not be positively made without a bacterio- 

1 White, G. Franklin, January 14,1905. State of New York, Department of Agriculture, Twelfth 
Annual Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, for the year 1904, pp. 106-107. 
