1. Definition of the level of a lesion. Wherever para- and tetraplegic patients are treated, the exact neurological level ought to be established and, together with a description of the skeletal injury, used to define the lesion.Of the two different methods of defining the neurological level method (a) giving the number of the most distal uninvolved segment of the cord is unequivocal. It should, wherever possible, be adopted, particularly in centres planned in future.All future publications should state whether they employ method (a) or (b).2. Assessment of active power in individual muscles is, in the great majority of centres, carried out according to the scale of the British Medical Research Council. This method should be adopted universally in future.3. The description of incomplete lesions, apart from recording all individual detail, relies on a number of subheadings (anterior, central and posterior cord-syndromes, Brown-Sécard).An additional method of classification in practical terms of independence and functional ability will be internationally discussed.4. A firm prognosis as to the chances of neurological recovery in initially complete lesions might best be postponed for three weeks in paraplegia, for six weeks in tetraplegia. In initially incomplete lesions it may be wise to wait at least six months.5. In new lesions a rise—or fall—of level by more than three segments within hours, days or weeks of injury is seen in a, generally small, percentage of cases.6. In old lesions genuine recovery of power in a muscle completely paralysed for two years after injury is seen occasionally in cauda equina lesions.7. A rise of neurological level several years after injury, at times the occurrence of cervical signs above a free interval in dorso-lumbar lesions, is seen infrequently.8. Severe permanent increase in spasticity several years after injury—without discoverable cause—is seen as rarely as the opposite, spontaneous gradual transformation from a spastic into a flaccid lesion.See also: Discussion by Michaelis.