68 HISTORICAL NOTES ON BEE DISEASES. 
quently seen in cultures from the throat. Now,it may be that Wilson 
made a correct identification, but inasmuch as the source of the 
culture was the throat, he should have been very careful about 
making the identification positive. 
It might be mentioned here that not a few bee keepers have been 
startled by an announcement that B. aivei is found in human sputa. 
Some of them have reasoned, very naturally, that if all reports were 
true the sputum might be the source of foul-brood infection, but 
there is no convincing evidence, of course, that such is the case. 
Burr, JANUARY, 1906. 
Burri’s next paper! was on “foul brood” and “sour brood.” 
His discussion of foul brood is quite similar to that which appeared 
in his former paper (p. 64). We shall therefore direct attention at 
this time to that portion devoted to “‘sour brood.” 
The origin of the name “‘sour brood” is indefinite. Quoting from 
C. P. Dadant, an American writer, Burri writes that there are three 
diseases of the brood recognized in America—foul brood, sour brood, 
and black brood. This view would make sour brood synonymous 
with pickled brood, but as it will be learned later in his work on sour 
brood, Burri was studying for the most part at least European foul 
brood. | 
Tn his work Burri did not find a uniformity in the diseased brood 
examined either in the gross or the miscroscopic appearance. In 
one sample he found no bacteria, although the outward appearance 
of the larve indicated disease. In another sample the gross ap- 
pearance did not suggest foul brood, and there were absent the bac- 
teria which are commonly found in the disease; and in their stead 
there were present millions of bacteria which to the investigator did 
not seem to stand in etiological relation to the disease. In still a 
third instance the larve gave no outward sign of being illed by the 
bacteria of foul brood, but when studied culturally, they showed 
the presence of a very large number of unidentified bacteria together 
with a few of those which frequently accompany “foul brood.” 
These findings illustrate, he says, some of the difficulties which are 
encountered in a study of the brood diseases bacteriologically. 
Putting aside all samples which were unquestionably “foul brood,” 
he attempted to group the remaining ones according to certain 
characteristics observed in a study of the gross appearance of the 
- diseased brood. One character which seemed to be emphasized was 
the sour odor emitted by certain samples.- On account of this he 
classified this condition as ‘sour brood.’ In testing the odor of 
brood dead of the disease, Burri recommends the holding of the nose 
i Burri, Dr. R., January, 1906. Bakteriologische Untersuchungen iiber die faulbrut und Sauerbrut der 
Bienen. Pp. 39, pl.1. Vorwort by U. Kramer, ; 
