They probably would come more clearly under the so-called radiation from numerous rural districts. In almost every case at the point of its origin in these countries the epidemic developed and spread slowly, lasting months and with very varying morbidity and mortality. They had none of the explosive characteristics of the pandemic. The general diminished morbidity of the later epidemic, the diminished geographic distribution of the disease and the scarcely recognizable character of its contagion, its slow development and extension over several months, the continuous diminution in frequency and in intensity since its onset in 1889, have been explained by presumptive successive lessening of susceptibility of the population, possibly due to acquired immunization. Observers at that time, as well as ourselves, could question this last statement. There was observed one noteworthy thing about seasons. While the great pandemic of 1889 and 1890 had no definite connection with seasons, the epidemic types which followed in 1891 and 1892 seemed to show a lighting up in either spring or fall, remaining dormant in the summer months. It has also been shown by the history of former epidemics that almost all the pandemics started from Russia in the fall, winter and spring months. Such was the case in 10 of the great pandemics of 1729 to 1889. This, no doubt, was the reason so many of the former historical writers were impressed by seasons and meteorological conditions. The statement made by observers during the epidemic that influenza presented two phases, one pandemic and the other endemic, and that each follows different epidemiological rules, seems possible. The question raised during the last epidemic of the spread of the disease in families, the disease occurring at high altitudes and even at sea, we know does not interfere with the recognition of its spread by direct contagion. Definite examples of families or villages being infected by a returned member of such family or citizen from abroad are reported frequently, and even the appearance of the disease in isolated places has often been traced and verified from a definite source, to say nothing of the question of carriers and those supposed to be suffering from other diseases. Striking examples are shown also in this epidemic that many institutions, frequently those isolated from the world, were markedly exempt until, through servants or outside visitors, the disease gained access to them. This gave a most favorable field for the study of invasion, spread and decline of the disease. Observations made at this time in regard to hospitals seemed to suggest that certain institutions were more or less exempt, although not closed institutions, while others suffered from the first. These two types of hospital invasion are hard to reconcile.