ISTITUTO

a
<
4
con i *

24.x4.52

Dear Joshua,

This letter need:not alter the regular sequence of
correspondence.I have nothing special to report on laboratory
work,at l-ast nothing g@¥ which I am really satisfied. I received
on Saturday your letter concerning the proofs,which rather asto-
nished me because I had not. yet received the proofs.A few hours
later the proofs came;they had been delayed in the mails because
the Editor sent them to the address given in the paper,which is
not sufficient. However, I knew the proofs were coming because
Hayes had wired me-and added :that no corrections of text were
allowed.I sent him nevertheles the enclosed list of corrections
,»which were reduced so as not to alter the kmaxkxts paper to a
considerable extent from a typographical point of view and wired
him back to wait,befpre sending the proofs back, in order to be
sure that my list had reached him. It was very good inspiration
to send back your proofs as well with the correction of the mi-
sprint in title,because this:is the kind of error which most easi-
ly eseapes attention,and if Hayes overlooked it,the Editor will
in any casebe aware of it. 4 shall let you know further news as
soon as they come.

I hope you appréve the enclosed correctionssthey represent
the interpretation of what you wrote me.
Yours :

Cuca -
LIST OF CORRECTIONS TO JGM PAPER
Pages refer to yellow manuscrppt in my hands.

p.6,lines 19-22,delete sentence :"Aeration was carried out
either by rolling the tubes (Milan) or by bubbling air thorugh
the medium ",

p.6 line 18,insert :"(by rolling}" after the word “aeration",

p-9 line 12. Instead of "enzyme inhibitors(...)",write :
"inhibitors of enzymes(....)".

BxLOzkines.BnlOsrinatagdcafiparhapasmere ximpartankNpwEikMarrxn

r

Bxi2xjxkingii?

p.12,lines 13-21 (given as lines 21-29 vage 9 of the manuscript
in Lederberg's hands).Lederberg believes this is too near the
American version and should be possibly paraphrased.Have you
any suggestions which would not alter the number of lines?

p.l19 line 22, Instead of "prototrophs" write "zygotes",

p.20,lines 2-3. Instead of: (assuming this as the physical
basis of the observed exchanges),write :(sssuming this is the
basis of the observed genetic exchanges). This should not
alter the following lines. ©

p. 22,line 16. “ustead of"strain . 9777 write: "strain W 945".

pe22,line 17. Instead of :"S-"ale « yl-Gal-Lac-Ara-Tl-? write :
"3 ‘al-iyl-Cal-Lac-(Ara-TL)."

p.24 line 17. Instead of : " Noclearcut exception has been foe
und to the rile that," write : " Hfr forms an apparent excep-
tion to the rule that,". im

p.24 line 19. Instead of : "This would mean" write : "This
rule would mean".

Note.: in the transformation xhugz sugzested, PAS rédh
gained in the first line is exaclty correspondént to that lost
by adding the word "rule" in the third line,so that only the
first three lines of this paragraph need be rewritten,

p.27,last BAR. I can here suggest two alternatives,a more
drastic one and a less drastic.The more drastic might alter
the number of pages and therefore may have to be discarded on
this ground.

According to the less drastic alteration,the following
corrections should be made ;:

p.27,line 15. Instead of :¥xAksigastxane "Two hy votheses,
based on " write : "At least one hypothesis,bhased on".

P.27 line 16-17: delete sentenee: "the first is that".
p.27, line 19. Instead of: "There is at present no evidence to"
write: "There is at present no definite evidence to",

p.27,last three liness;delete all the text after the word
"reduction",which will therefore terminate this paragraph,

p.28 delete first two lines.

p.28 line 3 ,Instead of "The second hypothesis would suppose"
write : “Another possibility is that there is". The new sentence
has the same length as the old one,

p.28,lines 13-16, Instead of " This second hypothesis, however, et
ec", Write : "This interpretation however does not agree wel
with some features of the data in tabbe 2 »Which need not be
discussed in this place,so that ,at the moment, the hypothesis

of segmental eldmination remains the more attractive.

The more drastic alteration has in common with the first the
correction of the last par.of page 27. I rwwrite here for cla-
rity this paragraph,as it should look like aft-:r correction:

"As to the effects of F+ on segregation ,it is obvious that
further analyses of linearity of the chromosome (the physical
basis of the linkage group) in Bact.coli X12 will have to
take them into consideration. At least one hypothesis, based on
Mendelian theory,can be put forward to aecount for them: the
elimination of a specific segment of the chromosome contributed
by the F+ parent may take place regularly at every fertilisation.
There is at present no definite evidence to sugeest whether
such elimination might occur during formation of the F+ gametic
cell,@uring fertilisution,or at the ensuing reduction, "

With the here drastic alteration,this paragraph would end
the paper and all the rest would be deleted.

 

With the exception of phe correction at page 6,which alters
the number of lines and may be impossible at page-proof stage,

and the corrections Bout d nag ha Fee. aragra hs which are some=
what extensive but das 3 Bkxakt aL ReROE REST being the

last ones,all the corrections given should not alter the number
of lines or the lines coming after the text which has been correc
ted so that there should be no ¢reat difficulty experienced in
incorportating them into text.