CITi:silTHi:, AUGUST IT), 1884. 21 



dimmish verj'- perceptibly in stroiigtli. This (HfVerence in the strength 

 of two such colonies suggested to Cheshire the probalnlity that the 

 adult bees died from foul brood. 



In an attempt to settle this question he went to a foul-brood colony 

 and observed one bee dead, another hopping hi abortive flight, and 

 finally a third and fourth worn out. The microscopic examination 

 of the fii-st bee was negative, but the second bee was full of active 

 bacilli. This, he believed, was sufhcient to answer the question. 

 From tliis he concluded that workei-s and drones suffer from the 

 disease, wliich suggested to 1dm the possibility that the queen suffers 

 also and, if the queens suffer, he says, why are the eggs not also 

 affected? As a result of these observations he suggested that the 

 name foul brood is inappropriate, since as he supposed, the disease 

 affects adults as well as brood. 



At tliis point in his paper Chesliire gave to the bacillus which he 

 saw the name Bacillus alvei, meaning bacillus of the hive. This name 

 he claims represents both generically and speciffcally what the dis- 

 ease really is. 



In the treatment to combat the disease he recommended the feed- 

 ing of phenolated sirup, in the proportion of 1 part pure carbolic 

 acid (phenol) to 500 parts sirup. This drug had been used, however, 

 in the treatment of bee diseases before Cheshire recommended it. 

 In expressing his apparent confidence in carbolic acid as a cure for 

 foul brood, he writes: 



I could take an apiary beginning of March with every stock diseased, and by May 1, 

 with but very little labour, deliver it up clean and strong, as strong as though the 

 disease had never appeared. 



NaturaUy many practical bee keepers who had had experience with 

 foul brood hesitated to accept literally such a broad statement. 



Cheshire, August 15, 1884. 



The idea which many bee keepers have that a queen mth diseased 

 ovaries wdll transmit the disease to the brood is largely based upon 

 the wT-itings of Cheshire.* In a paper he relates his observations 

 in support of his beUef that the queen may be responsible for foul 

 brood in a colony. He received from a bee keeper a c^ueen, nearl}' 

 dead, that was taken from a colony in which some of the larvae 

 seemed to die immediately after hatching. One ovary from this 

 queen, which was yellow and soft, was removed. A portion was 

 examined under a microscope, and four or five bacilli were observed. 

 Detaching now a half-developed egg, it was placed m a Uttle water 

 upon a slide and covered with a cover-glass. Upon examination, 

 no less than nme bacilli were seen. The right ovary, it is stated, 



'Cheshire, Frank R., August 15, 1S84. Quoon and eggs containing Bacillus alvei— {ou\ brood (7) 

 British Bee Journal, Vol. XII, No. 152, pp. 27&-277. 



