98 HISTORICAL NOTES ON BEE DISEASES. 
species of the microorganism, Cryptocéccus alvearis, seen by him in 
foul-brood larve. The two may have been the same germ. 
10. From his own work there is‘no way of knowing positively with 
what bacillus Cheshire was working, since he made no satisfactory 
description for its identification. Later (pp. 31-33) Cheyne made a 
careful description of Bacillus alvei, and Cheshire agreed that it was 
the organism to which he had given this name. 
11. Cheshire asserted positively that his phenol treatment is a 
most effective one for foul brood. Many bee keepers have tried it, 
however, without success. 
12. He concluded upon further study that the two forms of the 
disease described by Dzierzon are one disease, and that this disease 
is amenable to the ‘‘Cheshire treatment,’ even when the disease 
appears in the most malignant form. 
13. Concerning the difference noticed in samples examined micro- 
scopically, he writes that the more robust spores are associated with 
the more virulent disease. 
14. He was led to believe that the ‘‘premature baldness”’ of 
‘‘black robbers”? was due to a bacillus which he saw and named 
Bacillus depilis or Bacillus gayton. 
15. He reported that the odor of a gelatin culture of what he sup- 
posed was Bacillus alvei was very similar to the odor observed. in 
colénies affected with foul brood. Even if Bacillus alver were the 
cause of a disease of the brood, one should not expect, of course, this 
similarity. 
16. He suggests the possibility that a queen at the time of mating ~ 
might become infected with Bacillus alvei from a drone reared in a 
foul-brood colony. He expressed a strong conviction that in this 
way foul brood might be transmitted to a healthy colony. 
17. He would have his readers believe that he had found the dis- 
ease in young larvee, in those fully fed, in chrysalids of all stages, in 
drones, in workers just gnawing out of the cell, in young nurse bees, 
in old worn-out bees, and in the queen and the unlaid eggs. 
18. All of Cheshire’s papers which have been considered—and we 
have not referred to them a!l—were prepared in less than one year 
and most of his observations were made in less than half that time. 
We have reviewed these papers by Cheshire in order to point out 
the origin of some of the errors that have crept into bee literature. 
That the several suggestions made by Cheshire were never demon- 
strated to be true will at once be apparent to the reader. The fol- 
lowing criticism offered by Cheshire! on the work of Schénfeld may 
now be applied, it seems, with equal propriety to his own: 
I cannot refrain from expressing my conviction that it is much to be regretted that 
so misleading an account of experiments, to all appearances conclusive and complete, 
1 Cheshire, Frank R., August 1, 1884. Foul brood (not Micrococcus, but Bacillus), the means of its 
propagation and the methods of itscure. British Bee Journal, Vol. XII, No. 151, pp. 256-263. 
