CHESHIRE AND CHEYNE, AUGUST, 1885. 27 
2. He gave the results of the first two months’ work before a con- 
ference of this association on July 25 of the same year. 
3. Although he started out with Dzierzon’s idea that two forms of 
foul brood are to be encountered in studying the disease in the apiary, 
he does not seem to have suspected, while making his observations, 
that probably two distinct diseases were being called by the one 
name—foul brood. 
4. The observations which he made on the morphology of the 
bacillus found in the diseased and dead larvee were very good. He 
probably saw what we now know as Bacillus larve, but interpreted 
his findings wrongly. Before Cheshire and after him there were sev- 
eral who probably encountered the same bacillus in their studies, but 
who made the mistake of misinterpreting their results. Inasmuch as 
American foul brood is widely distributed in many countries, and 
Bacillus larve is always found in the larve dead of the disease, it 
would have been almost impossible for these men not to have seen 
this microorganism. 
5. Cheshire, by his studies on the morphology of the bacillus, by 
his inoculation experiments on blowfly larva, and by cultures, at- 
tempted to prove that Schénfeld was in error in his investigations. 
It is true Schénfeld had not proved his theory concerning the etiology 
of foul brood, but Cheshire in his attempt to do so failed to prove 
that Schonfeld was in error. 
6. Cheshire began the study of B. alver culturally with a medium 
prepared from the larve of bees. He was unfamiliar, however, with 
the technique used in cultural methods, and for this reason too much 
importance should not be attached to his results. Historically, 
however, it 1s of interest, since it was probably the first cultural work 
to be done in the study of bee diseases. 
7. Inasmuch as he inoculated healthy brood with cultures, one 
learns that Cheshire recognized the advisability of making animal 
inoculations in determining the cause of disease. Unfortunately 
here, too, the methods he used were deficient, and his interpretation 
of the results obtained misled many as to the cause of foul brood. 
8. Cheshire had suspected from some observations which he had 
made that adult bees suffered from foul brood. Examining micro- 
scopically the content of the intestinal tract of an adult bee taken 
from a foul-brood colony, he found many active bacilli to be present, 
and from this observation he was convinced that adult bees, as well 
as larvee, suffer from the disease. Had he, however, examined a 
healthy bee in the same way, he would probably have seen a similar 
condition. 
9. He gave the name Bacillus alver to the bacillus with which he 
was working. “‘Alvev,’”’ used to designate the species, is very similar 
to the word ‘‘alvearis,’’ which Preuss used (p. 16) to designate the 
