April 2, 1952

Dear Tome

I have the PHS documents, and will take care of same right away.
I hepe you weren't too disappointed about Merck-- I had never thought
tov auch about that prospect. Of course you should apply for the PHS
fellwwship, you will have to evaluate the ris¥s yourself. I do
hope you make; we should have a lively group here next year, with a
coupld of other postdoos. (from England-—- on their ov steam). Let me
know before you do anything too drastic out of discouragement,

As to your paper, I wonder if your two masters ars not already enough.
Moat of my comusnts sbout the paper still hold, and I don't see that it
would do any good to amplify them. If you want to include kinetic data,
you ought to revéhe the title. I don't think this type of reemphasis is
going to mean very much re Delbruck's misfortunes, and if they can repro-
duce your resulte under your conditions, why where's the quarpel?

Why don't you refer to Glifton's paper? I haven't received your
cultures just yet, but expect them. As to the genetis data, I've only
gone over the first cross #1177 x B6. There looks to be a fairly straight-
forward linkage of ‘s'' to Xyl; less directly to Mal and 3 (see Newcome
and Nyholm 1950: Am. Nat.) If the other data agree, why don't you simply
report this table and the results of pairwise contingency tests. I am
a little sour about ‘mapping in the Mal-Xyl neighborhood until we can get
the segmental alimifation cleared up, in relation to F.

Your analysia of Hayos is almost exactly what 1 wrote to him myself.
He has a second paper in press (Mature) on the Texas effect [which works
on the 58161, aot +677 -— F?] where he gently drops the idea of the phage
gamete. The reat of it@is just quibbling, (I don't mean so mich Hayes!
speculations, which he*ds entitied toc, and whose force is limited by his
own backgroum:, but the Parisian acceptance or distortion by people who
ought to know better. “hols ewerybody in Faris: Ravin, Harriett and who else?)
Esther's statanents about nonlysogenic crosses are not explicitly directed
at this question: UGB-1; Genetics 36:560. However, J thought I exphasized them
at CSH lest summer, and I discussed thd question in detail with Monod in
correspondence some time ago. Your light effect sounde most exciting.
I have not so far been able to demonstrate any hormonal interactions (barring
the genetic effect of F+). Also rutin, which is a potent inhibitor of sexuality
in Chlamydozcnas and Faraythia (Kuhn-Moewus) has no effect whatever in coli,
This does not exclude a biochemical approach. The F story does look like
it's turning into a scheme of relative sexuality: F+ stocks are interfertile
depending on the difference in their "potency". (Maybe. )

Sincerely,
Joshua Lederberg