24 HISTOEICAL NOTES ON BEE DISEASES. 



experience of nor had I seen the disease before. However, from the confident way 

 in which Mr. Cheshire spoke of his phenol cure, I resolved to try it, and as honey 

 was still coming in, I had to pour the medicated syrup over the brood-combs; but 

 aa soon as the ingathering of honey ceased, I extracted all the combs in my apiary 

 and commenced to feed; and after a little experience of it, I found that 1 in 600 was 

 as much as the bees would take. When enough of this had been deposited and sealed 

 for winter stores, I made a thorough examination, and found that it had not cured 

 a single one, but the disease had spread to others that were being fed with the carbolised 

 syrup. I then withdrew the combs from two of the worst, and gave them empty 

 ones to begin in, re-fed them 1 in 600 of Calvert's No. 1; the disease spread again, 

 and I lost all faith in the Cheshire cure. 



Cheshire, September 15, 1884. 



Two weeks later another article ^ by Cheshire appeared in wliich 

 the origin of the names Bacillus depilis and Bacillus gatjtoni is found. 



Many cases had been reported in which numerous small, hairless 

 bees had been found in front of the hive. These had been con- 

 sidered simply as robbers. It seems, liowever, that Miss Gayton, a 

 bee keeper and observer, had furnished IVIr. Cheshire some of these 

 bees, together with her notes for examination. He examined the 

 bees and found in them in every case a bacillus smaller than Bacillus 

 alvei, and by work done in the Biological Laboratory at South Ken- 

 sington they were believed to be entirely distinct species. In his 

 paper Cheshire writes: 



This bacillus, undoubtedly, produces this effect [premature baldness] and so again 

 I claim the right of giving a name, and so suggest Bacillus depilis, or the bacillus of 

 hairlessness, as a fitting one. Although, perhaps. Bacillus gaytoni would be better 

 remembered and only a well-deserved compliment. 



Here again it is noted that data are wanting to justify the conclusions 

 drawn. 



Cheshire in the same article gives also a few laboratory notes of 

 some interest to support his view that Bacillus alvei is the cause of 

 foul brood. He, together with Cheyne, inoculated some gelatin tubes 

 with a small quantity of the coffee-colored remains of diseased cells. 

 Subcultures to the seventh generation were made. The character of 

 the growth thus obtained indicated that the organism was unknown. 

 The cultures were described as having the same characteristic odor 

 that is encountered in hives containing foul-brood material. This 

 he believed to be strong evidence that Bacillus alvei is the cause of 

 foul brood. In this same paper he anticipated the proof to be 

 obtained from the inoculation of a healthy colony with Bacillus alvei. 

 The twelfth generation of the culture was to be mixed with water 

 and sprayed over a card of healthy brood . Concerning the results to be 

 obtained he writes: "I will not prophesy, although I foresee the 

 results." At that stage of his investigation it was unwise, of course, 



1 Cheshire, Frank R., September 15, 1884. Bee diseases in relation to apiculture and general science— 

 Bacillus gaytoni (?). British Bee Journal, Vol. XII, No. 154, pp. 317-318. 



