April 10, 58
Dear Josh,
I am just about to leave NY for Paris but wish to drop a few lines to you before one of the [ . . . ] of the Gatlinberg Symposium fades out.
I felt all along somewhat inconfortable [sic] because, in a way, I "capitalized" on Nanney's ideas which have not as yet been properly written up.  As you may remember, in my talk I emphasized, at least on two occasions, that the ideas I presented have originated with Nanney or, otherwise, in the discussions at the Gat[?] Symposium[?].  For some reason, however, this did not impress the participants and everybody was talking of "Ephrussi's ideas."  For your magnificent Summary of the conference (after which I left), you also used such terms as "pre-Ephrussi 1958)" or "post-Ephrussi 58."  And your talk is, of course, of particular importance if only because it is going to be red [sic] much more than the discussions.  That's why during the break after your Summary I left a message with Roman which I asked him to read during the discussion following your Summary in which I could not take part.  My message was precisely to the effect that "I was prepared to take the blame for the new terms and definitions (genetic-prigenetic[?]), but
[END PAGE ONE]
[BEGIN PAGE TWO]
not the [ . . . ]."  I am sure however that people will [ . . . ] this in readily and I wonder whether you could straighten this out somehow when you correct the galleys of your recorded Summary.  Whatever you can do in this respect will be appreciated.
It was a great pleasure to see you again and to talk with you and I do hope that we will have soon another opportunity.
With regards and affection to both of you
As ever Boris.