Both groups of observers have described in some detail the pathology of the cases which were necropsied. The author in attempting to obtain further comparative information has submitted the pathologic descriptions given by the British authors to Dr. E. W. Goodpasture, who has very kindly pointed out the points of similarity and difference between the gross and microscopic findings in these cases of purulent bronchitis, and the same findings in typical influenza. He says that the lung picture, as described, is not the same as that which was typical of the acute influenza observed in the autumn of 1918 and again in the winter of 1920. The characteristic picture in the latter is primarily an extensive involvement of the alveolar structure, while as Abrahams and his associates remarked, the condition in their case is primarily “an affection of the bronchi and bronchioles, and not of the alveoli, though the alveoli may be affected later, if the patient survives long enough.” Goodpasture states that the pathology as described by the British authors is very similar to the lung picture in interstitial bronchopneumonia described by MacCallum for the post-measles and primary bronchopneumonia among our troops in the winter of 1917–18. The streptococcus and the influenza bacillus were dominant organisms in MacCallum’s series. It also resembles the pathologic picture described by Pfeiffer in his original article on one of the late recurrences of the 1889–93 epidemics of influenza. In summing up, we must admit that it is impossible to reach a definite conclusion, but that both clinically and pathologically the disease described among the British troops in 1916 and 1917 was not typical of influenza as we have known it more recently. The similar conclusion reached by Carnwath, presumably chiefly from epidemiologic considerations, has already been described. We do not deny that this “purulent bronchitis” _may_ have been influenza. On the contrary, it is a part of our hypothesis that influenza under the proper conditions may become epidemic in practically any land. But we do believe that the evidence has not shown that the disease among the British troops in 1916 and 1917 was an etiologic precursor of the great pandemic. To return to a discussion of influenza in China, we quote from an article by Cadbury in the China Medical Journal: “Unfortunately no health reports are available for the greater part of the Chinese Republic. We have consulted, however, the Health Reports of the Shanghai Municipal Council from 1898 to 1917, and among the total foreign deaths we find that only the following were attributed to influenza: 1899, one death; 1900, one death; 1907, four deaths; 1910, one death. After this no deaths are recorded from this cause up to and including the year 1917.