20.11752

My dear Bill, . :
Thank you for your letter and telegram. Airmailed
proofs have not yet been received,and I therefore doubt that

it will be possible to send them back to the Editor directly

in time.I am enclosing the list of corrections,hoping that they
can be incorporated even at the? of stage,at least the most
important of them. The Editor. will peraaps realize that writing
a paper with a certain hurry, by two,or rather, three people at
the corners of a traaggle London-Milan-Wisconsin is not an easy

I am rather ashamed for all the trouble that this
paper costs you.As to offprints, I shoulda orde*six hundred and
should be grateful if the bill coulda be made to my name at the
adaress of the Institutegas if the editor wants the reprints to
be paid by someone resding in Gt, Britain, perhaps I should ask
you to anticipate this sum and I shall care that this sum be
refunded to you. The same could happen also in case the editor
does not nd wher he money comes from, but you are interested
in having? Tae eat oti your ar:ival next year for the
Congresses, It would, however, help me if I could have the bill
addressed to the Institute,

The cars have come;they are beautiful. They are still
practically unknown in this country.Thank you und Mre?Hayes for
them,

I shall write more diffusely soon about workgat the
moment I want this letter sent &@8 s00n as possible. I was greatly
interested by your last letter,

Yours ever

ath He pte LE wl

Rw
WIR Wo wr ot ow Coa, he.
ae .
LIST OF CORRECTIONS TO JGM PAPER
Pages refer to yellow manuscrppt in my hands.

p.6,lines 19-72,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 “apration",

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

Byidpiines. 90104 xinategd<af!pexhanacmexaxtmportank!<wrikaxsxxx
wek2uxkine 2

p.l2,lines 13-21 (given as lines 21—29 nage 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?

p19 line 22, Instead of "prototrophs" write "zygotea",

pe 20,lines 2-3, Instead of: (assuming this as the phytical
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, Instead of*strain ¥ OTT} write: “strain W945" ,

P- 22,line 17, Instead of:"S-Mal- i yl~Gal-Lao-Ara-TL-! write :
"S-Mal—Xyl—Gal—Lao—(Ara-TL)." .

p.24 line 17. Instead of : " Noclearcut exception has been foe
und to the r:le that," write : "Hfr forms an apparent excep—
tion to the rule that,", ia

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

Note.: in the transformation thug sugcestea, PREer ssi,
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 suggeat 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 :2xAtxikeuntxene “Two hyvotheses,
based on "write : "At least one hypothesis, based on",

p.27 line 16-17: delete sentenee: "the first is that",
a

p.27,1line 19. Instead of: "There is at present no evidence to"
write:"There is at present no definite evidence to".

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

p.28 delete first two lines,

y.28 line 3 ,Instead of "The second hypothesis would suppose"
write ; "Another possibility is that there is". The new sentencs
has the same length as the old one, .

p.28,lines 13-16, Instead of " This second hypothesis, however, e+
ec", Write : "This interpretation however does not agree weal
with some features of the data in tabha 2 ,which need not be
discussed in this place,so that ,at the moment, the hypothesis
of segnental elamination remains the more attractive,

The more drastic alteration has in common with the first the
correction of the last par.of page 27. I rewrite 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 K12 will have to
take them into consideration. At least one hypothesis, based on
Mendelian theory,can be put forward to account for them: the
elimination of a specific segment of the chromosome contributed
by the M+ parent may take place regularly at every fertilisatior
There its at present no definite evidence to suggest whether
such elimination might occur during formation of the F+ gametic
cell,furing fertilis..tion,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 he last two paragra hich are some=
what extensive but abbuidenggedaves ate. conseauel é being the
last ones,all the corrections given should not alter the number
of lines or the lines coming after the text which hus been corre

ted so that there should be no creat difficulty experienced in
incorportating them into text.