28 HISTORICAL NOTES ON BEE DISEASES. 



species of the microorganism, Cryptocdccus alvearis, seen by him in 

 foul-brood larvae. The two may have been the same germ. 



10. From his own work there is no way of knowing positively witli 

 what bacillus Cheshire was working, since he made no satisfactory 

 description for its identification. Later (pp. 31-33) Cheyne made a 

 careful description of Bacillus alvei, and Cheshire agreed that it was 

 the organism to which he had given this name. 



11. Cheshire asserted positively that his phenol treatment is a 

 most effective one for foul brood. Many bee keepers have tried it, 

 however, without success. 



12. He concluded upon further study that the two forms of the 

 disease described by Dzierzon are one disease, and that this disease 

 is amenable to the ''Cheshire treatment," even when the disease 

 appears in the most malignant form. 



13. Concerning the difference noticed in samples examined micro- 

 scopically, he writes that the more robust spores are associated with 

 the more virulent disease. 



14. He was led to believe that the "premature baldness" of 

 "black robbers" was due to a bacillus which he saw and named 

 Bacillus depilis or Bacillus gaytoni. 



15. He reported that the odor of a gelatin culture of what he sup- 

 posed was Bacillus alvei was very similar to the odor observed in 

 colonies affected with foul brood. Even if Bacillus alvei were the 

 cause of a disease of the brood, one should not expect, of course, this 

 similarity. 



16. He suggests the possibility that a queen at the time of mating 

 might become infected with Bacillus alvei from a drone reared in a 

 foul-brood colony. He expressed a strong conviction that in this 

 way foul brood might be transmitted to a healthy colony. 



17. He would have his readers believe that he had found the dis- 

 ease in young larvse, in those fully fed, in chiysalids of all stages, in 

 drones, in workers just gnawing out of the cell, in young nurse bees, 

 in old worn-out bees, and in the queen and the unlaid eggs. 



18. All of Cheshire's papers which have been considered — and we 

 have not referred to them all — were prepared in less than one year 

 and most of his observations were made in less than half that time. 



We have reviewed these papers by Cheshire in order to point out 

 the origin of some of the errors that have crept into bee literature. 

 That the several suggestions made by Cheshire were never demon- 

 strated to be true will at once be apparent to the reader. The fol- 

 lowing criticism offered by Cheshire^ on the work of Schonfeld may 

 now be applied, it seems, with equal propriety to his own: 



I cannot refrain from expressing my conviction that it is much to be regretted that 

 BO misleading an account of experiments, to all appearances conclusive and complete, 



1 Cheshire, Frank R., August 1, 1884. Foul brood (not Micrococcus, but Bacillus), the means of Its 

 propagation and the methods of its cure. British Bee Journal, Vol. XII, No. 151, pp. 250-203. 



