SCHONFELD, NOVEMBER 15, 1873, 17 
sally accepted. Schénfeld,’ therefore, set about to supply incontro- 
vertible evidence to prove the cause of infectious foul brood. He 
received a small mass of decaying larve about the size of a pea and 
placed it under an inverted funnellike apparatus. An opening for 
the admission of air was made from below; the exit was an opening 
above in which was placed a stopper made of cotton. Placing this 
apparatus near the window, that it might receive the heat of the sun, 
he hoped, by the current of air which wouid thus be produced, to 
collect on the cotton, filling the exit, the spores of the fungus which 
would be floating off in the air from the foul-brood mass. Upon 
examining the cotton he found what he supposed was the fungus in 
the form of a micrococcus. This was the first part of his experiment. 
In the second part of it he used this cotton to infect healthy larve. 
Four square inches of brood was covered by a layer of cotton. The 
cotton was taken from one of the stoppers that had been contami- 
nated with the fungus by means of the apparatus. After two unsuc- 
cessful trials he made a third attempt, which was considered by him 
as being successful. After a lapse of four days seven larve had 
died and numerous micrococci were found in their dead bodies. 
In another experiment the same author used the larve of the blow- 
fly (Musca), Calliphora vomitoria. Some cotton contaminated in 
the manner outlined in his first experiment was placed upon some 
meat upon which these larvee were feeding. Nine days after adding 
his supposed virus he found dead larve which upon microscopic 
examination revealed to him again the presence of numerous micro- 
cocci. The results of these experiments convinced him that this 
micrococcus was the cause of infectious foul brood, and he believed 
that the fact would be accepted without question. 
The expermments of Schonfeld were not, however, universally 
accepted as conclusive. This induced him to perform other infec- 
tion experiments. This time he used ‘caterpillars of (Pieris) Ponta 
brassice and (Pieris) Pontia rape. The virus was mixed in dis- 
tilled water and painted on the exterior of the insect, with the result 
that those so treated died while the checks developed normally to 
healthy pupz. Microscopically, however, the check caterpillars 
showed also the presence of the fungus. This caused him to doubt 
somewhat his conclusions relative to the blowfly experiment. He 
believed, however, that sufficient evidence had now been produced 
to justify the conclusion that infectious foul brood is a mycosis and 
that the fungus Cryptococcus alvearis is the exciting cause of the 
disease. 
1 Schonfeld, Dr., November 15,1873. Faulbrut-studien, Pt.I. Eichstadt Bienenzeitung, 29 Jahrg., Nro. 
21, pp. 250-254; January 15, 1874. Faulbrut-studien, Pt. II, Eichstadt Bienenzeitung, 30 Jahrg., Nro. 1, 
pp. 3-5. 
13140°—Bull. 98—12——2 
