January 5, 1955

Dear Bruce:

I have had your draft for some few days now, but first got
the time and courage to go into it summarily just now, I am
quite optimistic that we can get togetha over it, though we
may have (by ample precedent) some discussion over style. I
think it should be possible to shorten the exposition considerably
without impairing its clarity or content, but this will take some
working out.
As to the data, taken overall, they parallel quite closely my
own experience with SW-666, and except where some specific amenda-
tions or generalizations are needed, it probably will not be necessary
to gay more than that they accord. I do notice that you have had a few
examples yourself of clones that were partly swarms, partly "unilines".
Would you consider some terminological rumination further? I am not

very happy about "semi-clone", nor, mich betterf,about unilinear, and
an @t41] trying to think uf any better. How about some of the following:

primogenitive, monochotomous, or (what I would vote for tentatively)

(uni)-catenate. The last has the advantage of suggesting o number of
correlated nours and adjectives— chain (as the generalization of a trail);
oligo-catenate; branched, etc. There are also a number cf more or less
precise analogdus to catenate inheritance, for example Jennings, 1908,
Jour. Exp. Zool. 53577, which suggested this ter.ainology. I am trying tc
collect instances for discussion.

Aside from style, the principal exception that I would take to the
draft is that it is rather too peremptcry in affirming the favored hypo-
thesis. I am reminded of the fate of ‘the original hypothesis of abortive
transduction, which also seemed quite unequivocally suppfrted. But as you
will have a better opportunity to judge, I am sure we can agree about
this, and without weakening the exposition. The historical developmant
is not quite accurate (at least for my own psyche, and, e.g., I used
trap droplets right from the start, and have had minimam trouble with
inviability and sticking at early stages) but again some comprosise is
likely.

It will take me a little while to do all this, and there are also a
ferclenup experiments I want to try. It seems to me that the behavior of
clones containing stable motiles should be studied farther (albeit with
mome difficulty). I am also suspicious that the distribution of particles
from non-E parent cells is non-random, but it will take some rather
tedious review of old protocols to find out for sure. What do you take
as the critical evidence for the F-cell hypothesis, that you get
only one cell per clone that gives more than 10 motile chains? But
if the dkkex distribution of chains wax from non-E's is also non-
random, we would not have a very precise test of the hypothesis.

I admit that this notion is far and away the most attractive, but
we ought not go any further in advaneing it than the evidence will
allow-- do pardon that pomposity, Bruce, I just mean that precisely
because the idea is intuitively attractive, we don't want to be
caught holding a lemon. I wish I could think of feasible, criticak
experiments, but this is why I hai been so hesitant about what ought
to be a definitive publication.

Yours,