. 
PRESENT STATUS OF INVESTIGATION OF BEE DISEASES. 35 
but there were other bacteria and also micrococci, as of course would be the 
case on account of the death of the skin. No micro-organisms were seen in the 
internal organs. It thus remains questionable whether the necrosis was due 
to the Bacillus alvei or not, more especially as I have since injected three 
guinea pigs subcutaneously with spore-bearing cultivations, but without effect. 
I must reserve the action of these bacilli on the higher animals for further 
investigation, as well as several other points of interest in regard to this 
organism to which I have not here alluded. 
I venture to think that when all the evidence brought forward by Mr. Ches- 
shire and myself is carefully weighed no doubt can be entertained that this 
bacillus is new to science and is the cause of foul brocd. Many questions of 
course still remain open, requiring further investigation into the life history 
of the disease. 
The next investigator to take up a bacteriological treatment of bee 
diseases was Prof. J. J. Mackenzie, bacteriologist of the provincial 
board of health of Ontario. The results of this work were published 
in the Ontario Agricultural College Report for 1892, pages 267-273. 
At the request of the Bee Keepers’ Union of Canada certain things 
were taken up which had a very practical bearing on the question of 
eradicating the prevalent disease. 
Professor Mackenzie knew of but one disease, probably, and having 
in hand the work of Cheshire and Cheyne, assumed that the disease 
found in Canada is the same as that deseribed by Cheyne. This is a 
natural mistake after the confusion in the diagnosis by Cheshire. — It 
was not the object of this investigation to demonstrate what organism 
produces the diseased condition, but, assuming that Bacillus alvei 
causes the trouble, to determine what resistance to heat the organ- 
ism has. 
No adequate description, such as would allow us to make any com- 
parisons with Bacillus alvei, is included in Professor Mackenzie’s 
paper. We do know, however, or at least have every reason to believe, 
that European foul brood was not found in Canada at that time and 
is not prevalent there now. I have been informed personally by Mr. 
William McEvoy, the veteran inspector of Ontario, that the disease 
which we now designate as American foul brood is the prevailing 
disease in Canada. It seems reasonable to suppose, therefore, that the 
samples taken to Professor Mackenzie by Mr. Holtermann and others 
did not contain any Bacillus alvei. 
Professor Mackenzie does not indicate in his paper that he had any 
difficulty in getting the organism with which he worked to grow on 
ordinary media. Bacillus larve, which is present in American foul 
brood, does not grow in such media, however, so there is but one con- 
clusion to be reached, and that is that he was dealing with some non- 
pathogenic form and not with Bacillus larvw. Since the bacillus 
described by Doctor White as Bacillus A is found on combs, both 
diseased and healthy, and somewhat resembles Bacillus alvei, it may 
be that this is what Professor Mackenzie had. 
