Ir

Sonnetorn mss,
Manuscripts Department, Lilly Library
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

{
1
{
}

This Material

, ls covered by copyright and may not be
| quoted or reproduced without permission

. For Reference Use Only.
' of copyright holder.

 

j

 

November £9, 1950

Dr. Joshua Lederberg
Department of Genetics
University of Hisconsin
Madison 6, %isconsin

Dear Joshua;

I havo given some thought to the questions raised in your
Letter of the 16th about the source book on microbial ‘Genetics
and transmit them for your consideration.

Fron the point of view of a teacher of genetics of micro-
organisms, I have asked myself: "“Vhat kinds of papers would be
most useful to students of this field?” Thore could be several
bases for selection. First, one could select those papers in
which the germ of an important idea, method, or discovery first
appeared. Second, one could select, without reference to priority
or origins, the papers which best illustrate ideas, methods or
areas of discovery. Third, one could select reviews, discussions,
or integrative papers. Fourth, one could select those long and
complex papers to which the student may ba repestedly referred
and which can scarcely ever be dealt with adequately in lecturas.

ideally, I should like to sea enough of all four tyzes of
papers included so as to cover the field sdequately from these
points of view. If any type were excludef, it should doubtless
be the third. But then this omission should be supplexented by
a bibliography of such papers. The latter aculd be menaged on a
pare cr tro and would edd grea'ly to the velue of the book, IT
therefore strongly recommend that such a bibliogranhy be included
and would be eled to contribute suggestions as to useful titles
for it.

The next group that offers difficulties, minly because of
size of papers, is the fourth. For example, I consider Whitshouse'ts
paper of 1942 in the New Phytologist (41:25) ec one of the more
important napers on senetics of Meurospora, #8 one thst can be
properly dealt with in lectures only at the expense of a dis-
proportionate amount of time, and therefore as one that would be
among the most useful for a student to heve avallable. Your
limitations of sia: doubtless recuira you to onit such papers.
That seems to me a great and almost fatal difficulty.

You bave confined your list in the main to onpers that fall
in ny first two clnsses. Actually, it scems to me you hsve not

 
‘

Materia. =.

. This

ight and may not be

{ For Reference Use Only

/ 4g covered by copyr

' qui

Bloomington,

 

Manuscripts Depart
Indians University,

i
a)

ut permission

ho

r reproduced wit
oted vight’ holder «

 

' of copyr

Dr. Joshua Lederbarg--2 November 29, 1950

‘been quite consistent about this, thouch in your letter I get the

impression you wished to emphasize my class 2, Apparently the
size of paper haa made you prefer in some eases the first paper to
the one that best illustrates the point. .

I therefore wish to raise, as others seen to have done, the
question of whether it would be better to try to do a proper job
| with a more limited field rather than sancrifice standards in
order to encompass in an unsatisfactory manner a hroader field.
By restricting the volume to bacteria you vould huve an sdditional
150 pages available and this might be enough to do a good job on
that restricted field,

Personally, I'd rather see ea good job done
on bacterial genetics than an unseti

stactory attenpt to cover a
broader area. Perhaps it eculd bea 1

niicated in the preface that,
if this book is successful, sinilar source books for other ereaa
. Of the genetics of microorganians will be fortheoning.

I also like Luria's suggestion about a loose-leaf hinder,
if thet were done, it might also be stated that pericdically
supplements to the bacterial volume would be fortheomine. A
problem in this connection is the reaction of libraries, It
ould, Iam sure, be quite impossible to prevent fllchine of
papers from a library copy of a loose-Lea? book; and I suspect
that libraries will not wish to purchase a book set up in that Taye.

However, the book is not intended for libraries and this need not
be an important consideration,

If you decide to go ahead with a volune of broader scope-—
vaich I strongly urge you will not do--then the following suggestions
as to deletions and inclusions might be considered,

The bacterial section would, in my Opinion, profit by the
inelusion of one of Robinoyts papers on cytolosy

pepers of the Stone group, by your paper on the exclusion of

alternatives to saxual fusion; and perhaps also one of Bitkin'’s,

one of Latarjet's and one of Bunting's,

» hy one or more

Aas to the Phagesa, I am not prepared to make recommendations
for until now I have left them out of ty course, since Luria
covered thet material,

Novy, ales, I shall heya to do may beast to
make cod our loss,
&

Your selecticn of papers on Paramecium would de improved, I
think, by deleting part II of my 1945 paper and replacing this by
my 1857 paper in PNAS, 23, whieh (if I may exvre-s en opinion
gBbout my owm papers) was probably my most important cont gibution.
Further, the conplste omission of the work on ¥,. dursari. seens to
me hard to justify and I vould not,even by remcte implica cion, wish

to teke any responsibility for it. If you think better of this,
i*d like to suecest one or more of the following for consideration:
Jennings 1938, PNAS, 24:112-120; Jennings 1941, Proce. Amer. Phil,
Soc. 851:25-48; Jennings 1942, Genetics 27:193-211; Chen, 1940,
NAS, 263239-240 or 1940 J, Hered, 51:175~184, Among the early

papers on Pararecium genetics, seme are models of a type of study

 
II

Manuscripts Department, Lilly Library
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

Sonneborn mss.

 

 

be

v1a

ithout permission

% and may not be

igh

Oniy. This Mate

| For Reference Use 0

oted or reproduced w
ight holders

 

' 4s covered by copyr
| of copyr

| qu

\

t

Dr. Joshua Laderherg--3 November 29, 1950

and presentation of rasulta with which modern stutents should be
acquainted. mong these I would particularly list fenninzgs 1908,
J.8.8. 5:577-622; Jonnings 1908, Proc. Amer. Phil. Sec, 47:595-546;
Jennings 1911, J.E.2. llsl-134; Jennings, 1915, J.B.%. 14:279-3913
Jennings 1916, Genetics 1:407:594:{this one is on Difflucia);
Jennings and Hareitt 1910, I, vornh. 21:495-5613; Jollos 1921,
Aron, £. Protistenkunde 31-222. The preceling 7 papers, with which
avery student of the genetics of Protozoa should be directly
acquainted total 869 pages, You rightly euess that I have ry

tonzue in my cheek at this point. But then the cuestion arises,
what good is a source book if it doesn't include the bagie source
waterials? Do not think I am trying to stretch the noints overly
fax. Those pavers are reelly imcortant and they contain much that
is merely being rediscovered or better explained novyea-days. Further,
I have omitted much of the more recent work thet should be inclided
if the book is really to serve its purpose. For example, it would
be grossly unjustifiable to omit Kimball's contributions; to mention
only one "mist" there is his paper on inheritance of mating types in
Euplotes, Genetics 27:269-285 (1942), not to mention his other
‘papers on Euplotes and Paramecium.

This brings up two other points. First, no source baok of
reasonable size enn include single papers that run more than 100
pages alone. Yet not all important source papers are brief. A
possible «+y out of this is to select a representative portion of
such paners, And this principle of seloction might even be
applied to briefer papers, I am arare of the obvious objections
to such @ procedure ané sls of the great burden ef tire and
responsibility this would vlace on the aditor; but 1% would greatly
increase the number of workers and parera that could be included
and I suspect that it could be done so as to reduce to neplirible
proportions the values lost by such deletions. . ,

My second pcint is thet the schee proposed by your list of
papers implies a serious distortion of values. By devoting half of
the book to bacterinl cenetics, by reducing the reprasentation of
Paraneclum end Neurossora to thrse papers each, by omitting papers
on Yeast and Chalmydomonas, you unavoisably give the t:nression
that the genetics of bacteria is the muin thing, vith relatively
little on other organisens being equally worthy of inclusion,
Nothing you can sey in tre Introduction will effectively counteract
that impression, Consequently, it seems to me thet, in feirness
and honesty, you must either reduce the secticu on bacterin toa
more ressoneble proportion of the whole, vith corressoniding ex-
pansion of other section: or expand the bacterial saction to the
full book, omitting the others completely. In my opinion, tha
former would yield a bock of relatively little value, shile the
istter would yield 2 boox of great value.

To turn to the Hevrospora section, I'm very pleased that you
selected the Beadle and Coonradt paper, for that us an outstanding ©
contribution. I also favor including the Beadle and Tatum paper
and the Lindegren peper. For minimm requiraisnts, it would seem to.

 
II

- Manuscripts Department, Lilly Library
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

Sonneborn mss.

 

 

““Phis Material ~
and may not be

{thout permission

ight

oted or reproduced w

nly

For Reference Use 0

ight holder e

 

‘4g covered by copyr

\

' of copyr

» qu

Dr. Joshua Lederberg~--4 November 29, 1950

me that the following sould also be included: NeClintock 1945,

Ame J. Bote. 523671; Srb and Horowitz 1944, J. Biol. Chem, 154:129;
Ryan and Lederberg 1946, 'NAS 32:163-175; Wagner and Cuirard 1948,
HUAS 34:598; and Horowitz 1945, PNAS 31:155. I have already
discussed Ghitehouse's paper, I feel 2lso that it is highly |
desirable to include a paner by Dodges, porhaps his 1929 or 1920
paper in Mycologia (21:2228 or 22:9), T:is does not do justice to
the work of Tatum, Sonner, Mitchell, or Emerson. Gn the cther hand,
limiting representation of the Neurospora work, 28 is done in your
proposed list, would seem to me completely indefensible.

For work on other Fungi, I would prefer other papers to the
one of Keitt and Langford. For example, I'd like to include:
Blakeslee's 1904 paper on sex in Mucors and Nerton'™s 1926 paper on
the analysis of spore arrangerent in Coprinus, for these were of
erest historical importance and served as motels for much of what
followed, Among the more recent pnpers, I'd select Hensen and
Snyder 1946, PNAS 32:272 on Hypomyees (inmportent among other
things in relation to the work of Moewus); Fries 1948, Hereditas
34:528 (on selection of mutants in Ophiostoma by starvation) end,
if possible, his 1946 paper in Svensk Rot. Tidsk. 406:127; ana
Sontecorve and Gemmell 1944, Nature 154:514 and 532, especially the
latter, It would be still better if Pontecorvo's work could he
even more fully presented, oe

The Yenst problen is a difficult one, in vier of what you say
about the copyrights on the papers of “inge and his collaborators,
I would, however, include the following papers by others: Lindegren
and Lindegren 1948, (Proc. 8th Int. Conger, Cen.} (interpretetion of
_ linkage and crossing over); Linitegren, Splerelmen and Lindogren
1944, PNSS 30:346; Lindegren and Lindecren 1946, CSH 11:115; ana
Splegelman 1946, CSE 11:256,-—-all on the plasmerene stuff. Here
more than in most cases, the idea of selecting parts of pavers for
inelusicn would pay off. Gould you cet permission to publish part
of ¥inge and Leustsen 1939 (to papers), 1940, and Winge and
Roberts 19487 By judicious selection of parts of tho nine papers
mentioned, one could treaent the meat of the Yeast situation
without taking too mich space. Of the Ephrussi papera, two should
suffice: the second and fifth in the Annales de Liinst. Past.
(Ephrussi, Hottinguer and Tavlitskl, vol. 76; and Slonimsii and
Zphrussi, vol. 77}. If it coves ont in time, the net paper on the
gene mutant would maxo « fine third port to the trinity. Again, it
wuld be advantageous to select only carts of these peners,

Finally, as to Chlamydomonas and Protosiphon, I'4 recommen?
the following: Arch, Prot. 1955, 86:1-57; Biol. Aentralol 1925,
053293-509; ibid, 58:516-526 (1938); “eltschr f. Naturforsch 3b:
273-290; Partugalias acta Biol. “er. A, 1949, 161-199, The threes
paners of 1940 (Biol. Zbl. 60:143-166, 597-626, and %. i. Abst.
ve. Vor, 78:418-522, especially the latter) sre of particuler
interest since they anticipate. the whole subsequent develoment
of bicche-ical genstics end menifest a ramarkable grasp of ite
potentialities and significance in the broadest way.
Sonneborn mss. II
Manuscripts Department, Lilly Library

Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

 

aa

+, be
produced without permission

! of copyright holders

may no

This Material

For Reference Use Only.
uoted or re

| qi

 

' 4g covered by copyright and

j

Dr. Joshua Lodernarc--5 Nevesber £9, 1950

Now where doos all this leave us? Obviously, I hseve not
helped you solve your problens or ansrer the questions you raised,
put I would not consider a source book which included only two or
three payers on any organiem to be sufficiently serviceable to
roquire students to purchase it, I could only recemcend it as
saving a few trips to the library. Also, if the German pavers
yere transinted, this might be an inducerent.

I can only urge that you consider the various altornatives:
(1) Confine the book to bacteria. (28) Expand it srently so ag
to represent othar organisms sadecuately. (2) Reduce the svsce
aevoted to bacterin to bring thet section to semething like its
proper proportion of the whole. (4) Decide upon selecting the
more useful and important parts of the papers, instead of
including each paper in full.

Your problems as editor are terrific and I wish I could see
an easier wey out than confining the book to hacteria, tut I don't,
If you decide to include my papers, let me know and I'll lend you
my orm last copies,

Witn best wishes,

Cordially,

TRB ige. T. M,.Sonneborn