24. HISTORICAL NOTES ON BEE DISEASES. 
experience of nor had I seen the disease before. However, from the confident way 
in which Mr. Cheshire spoke of his phenol cure, I resolved to try it, and as honey 
was still coming in, I had to pour the medicated syrup over the brood-combs; but — 
as soon as the ingathering of honey ceased, I extracted all the combs in my apiary 
and commenced to feed; and after a little experience of it, I found that 1 in 600 was 
asmuch as the bees would take. When enough of this had been deposited and sealed 
for winter stores, J made a thorough examination, and found that it had not cured 
asingle one, but the disease had spread to others that were being fed with the carbolised 
syrup. I then withdrew the combs from two of the worst, and gave them empty 
ones to begin in, re-fed them 1 in 600 of Calvert’s No. 1; the disease spread again, 
and I lost all faith in the Cheshire cure. 
CHESHIRE, SEPTEMBER 15, 1884. 
Two weeks later another article! by Cheshire appeared in which 
the origin of the names Bacillus depilis and Bacillus gaytoni is found. 
Many cases had been reported in which numerous small, hairless 
bees had been found in front of the hive. These had been con- 
sidered simply as robbers. It seems, however, that Miss Gayton, a 
bee keeper and observer, had furnished Mr. Cheshire some of these 
bees, together with her notes for examination. He examined the 
bees and found in them in every case a bacillus smaller than Bacillus 
alvei, and by work done in the Biological Laboratory at South Ken- 
sington they were believed to be entirely distinct species. In his 
paper Cheshire writes: 
This bacillus, undoubtedly, produces this effect [premature baldness] and so again 
I claim the right of giving a name, and so suggest Bacillus depilis, or the bacillus of 
hairlessness, as a fitting one. Although, perhaps, Bacillus gaytoni would be better 
remembered and only a well-deserved compliment. 
Here again it is noted that data are wanting to justify theconclusions 
drawn. 
Cheshire in the same article gives also a few laboratory notes of 
some interest to support his view that Bacillus alvei is the cause of 
foul brood. He, together with Cheyne, inoculated some gelatin tubes 
with a small quantity of the coffee-colored remains of diseased cells. 
Subcultures to the seventh generation were made. The character of 
the growth thus obtained indicated that the organism was unknown. 
The cultures were described as having the same characteristic odor 
that is encountered in hives containing foul-brood material. This 
he believed to be strong evidence that Bacillus alvei is the cause of 
foul brood. In this same paper he anticipated the proof to be 
obtained from the inoculation of a healthy colony with Bacillus alvev. 
The twelfth generation of the culture was to be mixed with water 
and sprayed overacard of healthy brood. Concerning the results to be 
obtained he writes: ‘‘I will not prophesy, although I foresee the 
results.” At that stage of his investigation it was unwise, of course, 
1 Cheshire, Frank R., September 15, 1884. Bee diseases in relation to apiculture and general science— 
Bacillus gaytoni (?). British Bee Journal, Vol. XII, No. 154, pp. 317-318. 
