Step 1: Apply aging with a 90-day lifespan.
In 30 days, individuals advance by one age class; those presently in 61–90 days will exceed 90 and \emph{die}. With the “no immigration/emigration” clause and no information about births, the only deterministic change is:
\[
\begin{aligned}
\text{(1–30)d} &\Rightarrow \text{(31–60)d},
\text{(31–60)d} &\Rightarrow \text{(61–90)d},
\text{(61–90)d} &\Rightarrow \text{exit (0 individuals)}.
\end{aligned}
\]
Hence, 30 days later we expect \emph{zero} in 1–30 d; counts in 31–60 d equal the previous 1–30 d bar; counts in 61–90 d equal the previous 31–60 d bar.
Step 2: Compare with candidate panels.
- Q and R still show many 1–30 d individuals \(\Rightarrow\) would require births/immigration (ruled out).
- S shows zeros in 31–60 d and nonzero 1–30 d \(\Rightarrow\) violates the deterministic aging shift.
- T shows 1–30 d = 0, 31–60 d equal to P’s 1–30 d bar, and 61–90 d equal to P’s 31–60 d bar \(\Rightarrow\) exactly the expected pattern.
Final Answer:\quad \(\boxed{\text{(D) T}}\)