In our own rivers Thames and Lea frequently about twenty times more microbes have been found in the winter than in the summer months, but it would be extremely rash to therefore infer that the comparative poverty of bacterial life was due to the greater potency of the sun's rays in the summer than in the winter. Doubtless it may contribute to this beneficial result; but we know as a matter of fact that, in the summer, these rivers receive a large proportion of spring water, which is comparatively poor in microbes, and that this factor also must not be ignored in discussing the improved bacterial quality of these waters at this season of the year. Another point which must be taken into consideration in regard to the effective insolation of water is its chemical composition, for it has been shown[5] that the action of sunshine in destroying germs in water is very considerably increased when common salt is added to the water, and this opens up a wide field for experimental inquiry before we can accept sunshine as a reliable agent in the purification of water. [5] PERCY FRANKLAND, _Our Secret Friends and Foes_, 4th edition, p. 188. Again, we must remember that a great deal depends upon the condition of the microbe itself. If it is present in the spore or hardy form, then considerably longer will be required for its annihilation. This fact has been abundantly shown in the case of anthrax, which in the condition of spores will retain its vitality in water flooded with sunshine for considerably upwards of a hundred hours, the bacilli being far more easily destroyed. We must also bear in mind that the individual vitality of the microbe is an important factor in determining its chance of survival; if it is in a healthy, vigorous condition, it will resist the lethal action of sunshine for considerably longer than when its vitality has been already reduced by adverse surroundings. It is, therefore, sufficiently obvious that the power of insolation to bacterially purify water is by no means easy of estimation, and that numerous and very varied factors have to be taken into account when we attempt to endow it with any measure of practical hygienic importance. In connection with the vitality of anthrax germs in water, which has afforded material for so many laboratory investigations, it is of interest to consider what chance exists of anthrax being communicated by water. Until a few years ago, as far as I am aware, no instance had been recorded of anthrax having been actually communicated by water, until an outbreak of anthrax on a farm in the south of Russia was distinctly traced by a skilled bacteriologist to the use of water from a particular well, in the sediment of which the bacillus of anthrax was discovered.