CHESHIRE, AUGUST 1, 1884. 19 
cure.”’ As Dzierzon and others had done, Cheshire refers to two 
forms of foul brood. Concerning the appearance of these two forms 
of the disease, he writes as follows: 
The appearance of foul brood is undoubtedly familiar to almost all before me. A 
larva, if attacked early, begins to move unnaturally, and instead of lying curled round 
on the base of the cell frequently turns in such a way as to present its dorsal (back) 
surface to the eye of the observer. A little attention will then show that the colour of 
the larva is inclined to yellow instead of being pearly white. Such grubs are only 
rarely sealed over. Those more advanced before the disease strikes them are in due 
course sealed, but death overtakes them, their bodies become brown and foetid, and 
the sealing sinking gets pierced by an irregular hole. From this may be gathered the 
general indications of the disease, which is usually accompanied by very energetic 
fanning at the hive mouth, from which in advanced cases an indescribable and nau- 
seating odour is emitted. The larve and chrysalids dead of the disease dry up to a 
coffee-coloured, tenacious mass lying at the bottom of the cell, so tenacious, indeed, 
that it may be drawn out into long threads like half-dry glue. The drying process 
completed, a blackish scale is all that remains. 
Cheshire gives here a description of the disease very similar to the 
one found in Dzierzon’s writings. His description of the disease when 
it attacks the larve early in the developmental stage fits quite well 
that of European foul brood; and the description which is made of 
the brood which is attacked later in the stage of development is 
equally accurate for American foul brood. There is little room for 
doubt that the two forms of foul brood described by Dzierzon and 
Cheshire are the two distinct diseases, European foul brood and 
American foul brood. 
Cheshire began his study of the disease by examining the juices 
of healthy larve microscopically. In these he found no bacteria. 
He then examined the coffee-colored, foul-broody, dead larval mass 
and observed numerous ovoid bodies which he demonstrated later 
to be the spores of bacteria. This led him to suspect that Schonfeld 
had fallen into the error of supposing that these spores were micro- 
cocci. Having found numerous spores in the remains of larvee which 
had been dead for a long time, he examined some larve which were 
dead but in a fresher condition. In these he observed many rodlike 
bacteria and fewer spores. He next examined larvee which showed 
signs of disease, but which were yet alive, and found their juices to 
be filled with actively motile rods. These rods were sometimes ar- 
ranged in chains—leptothrix forms. He now examined larve rep- 
resenting the different stages of the disease, and observed: First, 
that in the beginning of the attack, rods only were seen; second, 
as the disease advanced, the rods began to form spores; third, as the 
larvee assumed the viscid state, spores were very rapidly formed; 
and fourth, in a few days only spores in very large numbers were 
found. These observations on the morphology of the bacillus are 
good, but the conclusion which he drew from them, ‘‘Foul brood, 
then, is a bacillus disease,’’ is of course unwarranted. 
