CHESHIRE "and CHEYNE, AUGUST, 188;'. 27 



2. He gave tlie results of the first two months' work before a con- 

 ference of tliis association on July 25 of the same year. 



3. Although he started out with Dzierzon's idea that two forms of 

 foul brood are to be encountered in studying the disease in the apiary, 

 he does not seem to have suspected, while maldng his observations, 

 that probably two distinct diseases w^ere being called by the one 

 name — foul brood. 



4. The observations wliich he made on the morphology of the 

 bacillus found in the diseased and dead larvae were very good. He 

 probably saw what we now know as Bacillus larvse, but interpreted 

 his findings \\Tongly. Before Cheshire and after him there were sev- 

 eral who probably encountered the same bacillus in their studies, but 

 who made the mistake of misinterpreting their results. Inasmuch as 

 American foul brood is widely distributed in many countries, and 

 Bacillus larvse is always found in the larvae dead of the disease, it 

 would have been almost impossible for these men not to have seen 

 this microorganism. 



5. Cheshire, by his studies on the morphology of the bacillus, by 

 his inoculation experiments on blowfly larvae, and by cultures, at- 

 tempted to prove that Schonfeld was in error in his investigations. 

 It is true Schonfeld had not proved his theory concerning the etiology 

 of foul brood, but Cheshire in his attempt to do so failed to prove 

 that Schonfeld was in error. 



6. Cheshire began the study of B. alvei culturally with a medium 

 prepared from the larvse of bees. He was unfamiliar, however, with 

 the technique used in cultural methods, and for this reason too much 

 importance should not be attached to his results. Historically, 

 however, it is of interest, since it was probably the first cultural work 

 to be done in the study of bee diseases. 



7. Inasmuch as he inoculated healthy brood with cultures, one 

 learns that Cheshire recognized the advisability of making animal 

 inoculations in determining the cause of disease. Unfortunately 

 here, too, the methods he used were deficient, and his interj)rotation 

 of the results obtained misled many as to the cause of foul brood. 



S. Cheshire had suspected from some observations wdiich he had 

 made that adult bees suflored from foul brood. Examining micro- 

 scopically the content of the intestinal tract of an adult bee taken 

 from a foul-brood colony, he found many active bacilli to be present, 

 and from this observation he was convinced that adult bees, as w^ell 

 as larvae, suffer from the disease. Had he, however, examined a 

 healthy bee in the same way, he would probably have seen a similar 

 condition. 



9. He gave the name Bacillus alvei to the bacillus with which he 

 was working. "Alvei,^' used to designate the species, is very similar 

 to the word "alvearis," which Preuss used (p. 16) to designate the 



