PRESENT st aits OF [NVK8TIGATION OF BEE DISEASES. 3 



bul there were other bacteria and also micrococci, .-is of course would be the 

 case on account of the death of the skin. No micro-organisms were seen In the 

 interna] organs, it thus remains questionable whetner 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 tin-so bacilli on the higher animals for further 

 investigation, as well as several other points of interesl 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 thai this 

 bacillus is new to science and is the cause of foul brood. Many questions of 

 course still remain open, requiring further investigation into the life history 



of the diso;iso. 



The next investigator to take up a bacteriological treatment of bee 

 diseases was Prof. J. J. Mackenzie, bacteriologist of the provincial 



hoard of health of Ontario. The results of this work were published 

 in the Ontario Agricultural College Report for L892, 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 described by Chevne. 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 

 sample- taken to Professor Mackenzie by Mr. Holtermann ami other- 

 did not contain any Bacillus alvei. 



Professor Mackenzie doe- not indicate in hi- paper that he had any 

 difficulty in getting the organism with which he worked to grow on 

 ordinary media. Bacillus larva, which is present in American foul 

 brood, doe- 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 larva?. Since the bacillus 

 described by Doctor White a- Bacillus A is found on comb-, both 

 diseased and healthy, and somewhal resembles Bacillus "/>'<i it may 

 be that this i- what Professor Mackenzie had. 



