56 HISTORICAL NOTES ON BEE DISEASES. 
5. He compared Bacillus alvei 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 larve 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 alvet are one 
species. This conclusion led him to the unlikely supposition that 
‘foul brood” might appear in any aplary 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 alver and Bacillus mesen- 
tericus vulgaris: 
1 Harrison, F. C., February 28, 1903. Bacillus mesentericus et B. alvei. Revue Internationale d’ Apicul- 
ture’ Tome XXV, No. 2, pp. 29-32. 
