CHESHIRE, AUGUST 15, 1884. go) 
diminish very perceptibly in strength. This difference in the strength 
of two such colonies suggested to Cheshire the probability that the 
adult bees died from foul brood. 
In an attempt to settle this question he went to a foul-brood colony 
and observed one bee dead, another hopping in abortive flight, and 
finally a third and fourth worn out. The microscopic examination 
of the first bee was negative, but the second bee was full of active 
bacilli. This, he believed, was sufficient to answer the question. 
From this he concluded that workers and drones suffer from the 
disease, which suggested to him the possibility that the queen suffers 
also and, if the queens suffer, he says, why are the eggs not also 
affected? As a result of these observations he suggested that the 
name foul brood is inappropriate, since as he supposed, the disease 
affects adults as well as brood. 
At this point in his paper Cheshire gave to the bacillus which he 
saw the name Bacillus alver, meaning bacillus of the hive. This name 
he claims represents both generically and specifically what the dis- 
ease really is. 
In the treatment to combat the disease he recommended the feed- 
ing of phenolated sirup, in the proportion of 1 part pure carbolic 
acid (phenol) to 500 parts sirup. This drug had been used, however, 
in the treatment of bee diseases before Cheshire recommended it. 
In expressing his apparent confidence in carbolic acid as a cure for 
foul brood, he writes: 
I could take an apiary beginning of March with every stock diseased, and by May 1, 
with but very little labour, deliver it up clean and strong, as strong as though the 
disease had never appeared. 
Naturally many practical bee keepers who had had experience with 
foul brood hesitated to accept literally such a broad statement. 
CHESHIRE, AuGuST 15, 1884. 
The idea which many bee keepers have that a queen with diseased 
ovaries will transmit the disease to the brood is largely based upon 
the writings of Cheshire.t In a paper he relates his observations 
in support of his belief that the queen may be responsible for foul 
brood in a colony. He received from a bee keeper a queen, nearly 
dead, that was taken from a colony in which some of the larve 
seemed to die immediately after hatching. One ovary from this 
queen, which was yellow and soft, was removed. A portion was 
examined under a microscope, and four or five bacilli were observed. 
Detaching now a half-developed egg, it was placed in a little water 
upon a slide and covered with a cover-glass. Upon examination, 
no less than nine bacilli were seen. The right ovary, it is stated, 
1Cheshire, Frank R., August 15, 1884. Queen and eggs containing Bacillus alvei—foul brood (?) 
British Bee Journal, Vol. XII, No. 152, pp. 276-277. 
