56 HISTORIC AL NOTES ON BEE DISEASES. 



5. He compared Bacillus dlvei and Bacillus mesentericus vulgaris 

 and arrived at the conclusion that they are one species and offered 

 as proof of it that the morphology and cultural characters of the 

 two are similar, and that the serum of an animal immunized with 

 Bacillus alvei will agglutinate Bacillus mesentericus vulgaris and vice 

 versa. Furthermore, he claimed that foul brood can be produced 

 with cultures of Bacillus mesentericus vulgaris. 



6. He believed that when the resistance of the larvae is for any 

 reason lowered Bacillus mesentericus, if introduced, can become viru- 

 lent and produce "foul brood." In this way he explained the pres- 

 ence of ' 'foul brood" in an apiary without the introduction of infective 

 virus from without. 



This work of Lambotte has been criticised by different writers since 

 its appearance. The spores which he observed to be difficult of 

 germination were most likely not caused to germinate by the tech- 

 nique which he used. It would seem also that he was in error in 

 concluding that Bacillus mesentericus and Bacillus alvei are one 

 species. This conclusion led him to the unlikely supposition that 

 "foul brood" might appear in any apiary without the introduction 

 of an infective virus other than the widely distributed and commonly 

 met with organism Bacillus mesentericus vulgaris. 



Harrison, February 28, 1903. 



In a review, Harrison^ disagrees with some of the views expressed 

 in Lambotte's paper (p. 53). He did not believe with Lambotte that 

 B. alvei and B. mesentericus vulgaris are one species. It was his 

 opinion that Lambotte's work on these two species was insufficient 

 to establish their identity. Harrison compared the descriptions of 

 the two species made by different authors and offered the results as 

 evidence that the two were different. In offering the evidence he 

 states that he did not have time himself to make, for comparison, a 

 study of the cultures themselves. Harrison was led to believe that 

 Lambotte began his experiments with Bacillus mesentericus vulgaris 

 and not with Bacillus alvei. 



Two minor points of considerable interest are also recorded : First, 

 Harrison at this time states that he too had had at times some diffi- 

 culty in obtaining a growth from the spores in "foul brood"; and 

 second, he now credits Cowan for having said that Bacillus alvei pos- 

 sessed but one flagellum. 



The following sentence from Harrison's paper is offered as an argu- 

 ment to disprove the identity of Bacillus alvei and Bacillus mesen- 

 tericus vulgaris: 



• Harrison, F. C, February 28, 1903. Bacillus mesentericiis et B. alvei. Revue Internationale d'Apicul- 

 ture> Tome XXV, No. 2, pp. 29-32. 



