2°20 HISTORICAL NOTES ON BEE DISEASES. 
Cheshire, believing that foul brood was due to a bacillus and not 
to a micrococcus, as claimed by Schénfeld, sought to demonstrate the 
fact by repeating the inoculation experiments of the latter, using the 
larve of the blowfly used by Schénfeld (Musca) Calliphera vomitoria. 
Sixty blowfly larve were divided into three equal groups: 20 were 
not brought near foul-brood material; 20 were inoculated with the 
bacillus in the vegetative form; and 20 with the spores of the bacillus 
contained in the coffee-colored foul-brood material. Microscopic 
examination at the end of 24 and 48 hours failed to give evidence of 
disease in the fly larve. After 72 hours, however, active bacilli were 
observed. Cheshire writes, ‘‘This is most completely confirmatory 
of my position; but how could it be reconciled with Schénfeld’s 
assertion, that he found the dead flies full of micrococci? Had he 
searched further, he would have discovered that dead blowflies are 
generally full of micrococci.’’ In demonstrating this error of Sch6én- 
feld, he unfortunately made an error quite as great himself. 
Cheshire attempted to obtaim, by cultures, proof to support his 
contentions concerning the etiology of foul brood. He prepared a 
medium by taking drone larve and expressing and straining their 
juices into two test tubes. Tube No. 1 was inoculated with a small 
quantity of coffee-colored material, which for the most part contained 
only spores; tube No. 2 was inoculated with a trace of fluid from a 
diseased larva which contained the vegetative form of the bacillus. 
These tubes were then suspended in a hive between the frames 
in order that the temperature for growth might be right. After a 
period of 22 hours an examination was made. Observing practically 
no spores and many bacilli in tube No. 1, and many bacilli in tube 
No. 2, he reached the conclusion that many of the spores introduced 
into No. 1 had germinated, and that the bacilli introduced into 
No. 2 had increased by multiplication. From this he concludes 
that the rods were produced from the spores when suitable condi- 
tions permitted the germination of the latter, and that the rods pro- 
duced the spores when the reverse conditions were present. From 
the technique used, of course, the data he obtained could be of very 
little value. Thus Cheshire’s culture experiments failed as completely 
in demonstrating the etiology of foul brood, as did his experiment 
with blowfly larve. The experiment, however, is of some interest 
as it is among the first cultural work done on bee diseases, and also 
because here larvee of bees were used as a medium. 
Aside from the larve, Cheshire suspected that adult bees suffered 
from foul brood. He was of the opinion that if two colonies, a healthy 
and a diseased one are selected for observation, and 5,000 larvee be 
removed from the healthy ene, and 1,000 larve die of disease in the 
diseased one, that the healthy colony will progress pretty much as 
though it had lost nothing, while the diseased one will, as a rule, 
