Department of Genetics
University of Wisconsin February 1, 1952
Madison 6, Wisconsin

Dear Professor Buchner:

Professor E. A. Steinhaus of the University cf California has given me
your current address, and suggested that it might be worthwhile for me to
write to you.

I should say first that I have been specializing in the genetics of micro-
erganiams, especially the bacteria. Lately, my wife and I have been parti-
cularly interested in the genetic aspects of the endosymbiosis of bacterio-
phages with bacteria (lysogenic bacteria). From this entry, it has become
obvious that the genetical significance of "hereditary" symbioses has been
grosely overlooked. I need simply refer to the "kappa" system in Paramecium
and the" genoids" of Drosophila, in addition to lysogenicity, as instances
where a familiartty with the biolosy of endosymbioses may shed a great deal
of light on remarkable genetic problems.

About a year ago, the journal "Physiological Reviews” solicited a review
on the genetics of microorganisms. I wae not enthusiastic ahout another
summary of the sare material (e.g. in Heredity, Sept. '48; ann. Rev, Micro-
biology, 1949) but I thovght that a discussion of "cellular genetics", ieee,
a reexenination of the cell theory in the light of findings in microbial
genetics, would be useftvl. It soon became apparent that classical nuclear
behavior (which hes been the bulk of my work with Escherichia coli} adds no
critical nevelty to such a discussion; i+ would have to revolve around the
numerous cases of inheritance via autonomous, extrenuclesr factors. From this,
4t ic easy to see the transition to endosymbicses.

This letter is crempted by the inform:tion (supplied by Dr. Fraenkel ofvthe
University of Tliinois) that you are preparing annew book on endosymbiosis.
I have depended so heavily on your 1930 “Ther u. Pflanzs in Symbiose” that
I could scereely ignore this news, even in anticipation. If you plan to include
a diecussion of the bearing of endoswnbiosts om genetics in your new book, my
review will clearly be superfluous, and I will be pleased to abandon it. The
manuscrivt is presentiy in a very rough form, so there will be little effort
lost. If this subject ic not to be « significant theme of your book, there
may etill be some roint to my own interpretations. J must draw so heavily on
liustretions from fielde with which I am not direvtly familiar that the review
will be much lees useful if 44 does not take advantage cf your own summary.
The erticie has been promised for submission by July 1952, but this can be
postponed if it appears to be advantageous. May I then ask the follewing few
questionst
1} do you plan te conrent on genstic work on "cytoplasmic inheritance" in
the light cf endosymbilosis? 2) If not, can you tell me the publication
plans to help me decide whether to posppone my own review article? 3) Is
there any possibility of a discussion of your book prior to its publication,
or of seeing an advance or proof copy in time to help my own schedule’ If
you found this feasible,for examole, could I use a chapter outline to
frame a few questions on the scope of your discussion where it might overlap
mine, or to ask for a few more recent references. The general questions
in which I weuld be most interested are: 1) determination of phenotypic
cheractere by symbiowrits (e.g. in Pseudococcus brevipes - Carter's work) and
2) “ppects of apo-symbiosis (4,e, disinfection), and especially of substitu-
tion of microsymbionts from other species (the only reference I can find
4s Freenkel's brief paper on Stegobium and Lasioderma). By way of one speci-
fic question, has there been any work on “Syneyanom" since Pascher's very
stimulating 1920 »>aver?

I realize the 4rpoeition invoived in theese questione, and will be most
gratified at your consideration of them. I am looking forward to your book
with great anticipation. Biology may congratulate itself on the continuation

me mw... pe mse... «cg mr... _ ast se ot om eh hLUlUC MC llhlhlUr Cl