HOWARD, MARCH 1, 1894, 41 
The greatest mistake made by Mackenzie in his work was of course 
that he assumed that Bacillus alver had been demonstrated to be the 
cause of foul brood. 
The work which Mackenzie began was to have been continued the 
following summer, but, in a report ' of the Apicultural Committee 
of the Ontario Agricultural and Experimental Union one notes that 
Mackenzie, who had the preceding year given his services in connec- 
tion with foul brood, for the want of time had not continued his 
studies. 
Howarp, Marcu 1, 1894. 
In 1894 there appeared from the pen of William R. Howard,’ of 
Fort Worth, Tex., a small publication on foul brood. He makes 
clear in his preface that there is yet much to be learned upon the sub- 
ject, and that his communication is to be written in such a manner, 
and such terms are to be used in it, as will be readily understood by 
the general reader. _ 
In his brief reference to the history of foul brood, Howard writes: 
Later the researches of Preuss and Schénfeld, of Germany, were first to establish the 
fact that the disease was due to pathogenic micro-organisms. 
Howard, therefore, in the beginning entertained an erroneous 
conception concerning the real work accomplished by Preuss (p. 15) 
and Schénfeld (p. 16). 
The description given of Bacillus alver was taken, as he says, from 
‘“‘Wisenbure’s Bacteriological Diagnosis.”’ 'The description of Bacillus 
alver by Eisenburg was compiled from the joint publication by Chesh- 
ire and Cheyne (p. 25). Howard made some determinations con- 
cerning the ability of the species to produce gas and the ease with 
which it grows in the presence or absence of oxygen. He reports 
that the cultures, when grown under anerobic condition, produce 
an. odor resembling foul brood. Eisenburg does not include in his 
description any mention as to the oxygen requirements of Bacillus 
alver. ‘The only difference, it seems, between the description which 
Cheshire and Cheyne made of Bacillus alvei and the conception which 
Howard had of it, is in the fact that Howard thought that it grows 
better under anerobic conditions, while Cheshire and Cheyne ob- 
tained very satisfactory growth on the surface of media exposed to 
the air. 
Propositions are stated by Howard in his paper, and his own inter- 
pretations of them are given. Some of his views can be accepted 
as good, others can not. 
1 Holtermann, R. F., Monteith, S. N., Husband, E. M., 1893. Report of Apicultural Committee. 
Fifteenth Annual Report of the Ontario Agricultural and Experimental Union. Pp. 230-231. Contained 
in Nineteenth Annual Report of the Ontario Agricultural College and Experimental Farm. 
2 Howard, Wm. R., M.D., March 1,1894. Foul brood; its natural history and rational treatment, with 
a review of the work of others. Chicago, Il. Pp. 47. 
