Skip to main contentU.S. National Library of MedicineU.S. National Library of Medicine


Profiles in Science
   
Pinterest badge Follow Profiles in Science on Pinterest!

The Joshua Lederberg Papers

Title:
Letter from Kenneth A. Bisset to Joshua Lederberg pdf (269,721 Bytes) transcript of pdf
Letter from Kenneth A. Bisset to Joshua Lederberg
Description:
Item is handwritten.
Number of Image Pages:
4 (269,721 Bytes)
Date:
1951-07-13 (July 13, 1951)
Creator:
Bisset, Kenneth A.
University of Birmingham (England)
Recipient:
Lederberg, Joshua
Rights:
Reproduced with permission of the University of Birmingham (England).
Relation:
Lederberg Grouping: Correspondence B
Box Number: 6
Folder Number: 131
Unique Identifier:
BBACLI
Accession Number:
5
Document Type:
Letters (correspondence)
Language:
English
Format:
application/pdf
image/tif
Physical Condition:
Good
Series: Correspondence, 1935-2002
SubSeries: 1947-1953
Folder: Bisset, Kenneth A.
Transcript:
13th July 1951
Dear Josh,
Many thanks for the photomicrographs. Will you convey my message to Miss Lively also. I have been studying them, and consulting with Grace and Morris (Myxos and actinos, respectively). The conclusion to which we came -- more or less independently of one another -- is that the haploids are [DIAGRAM], and that a large proportion in the large picture of the diploids are [DIAGRAM], with some
[END PAGE ONE]
[BEGIN PAGE TWO]
apparent haploids. In the small picture, of the filamentone[?] diploids, many appear more like [DIAGRAM]. Now is it genetically possible that these are tetraploids, as they seem to be cytologically? Or what?
You seem puzzled to know why I asked for your agreement. The answer is quite simple: - You have ideas, and don't hesitate to express them ; you also make positive, and not merely negative criticisms. Accordingly, I like to know what you think.
Of course, just as I accord you the right to know better than me (from your greater experience) in purely genetical matters, so I consider myself capable of forming my own conclusions about cytology (I have some experience too), but I still like to know what other people think - especially yourself.
I know what I think about D-L-R, and since he asked for a fight he'll quite probably get one. I'm sorry that you were not
[END PAGE TWO]
[BEGIN PAGE THREE]
in the room when I explained his error; so in case you are interested, I'll expound,
Firstly, B. megetherium: - [DIAGRAM]
ow D-L-R, admittedly ignorant of the existence of the cross-walls and associated structures, and using a technique which in my (not entirely unskilled) hands stains all these membrane elements equally with the nucleus and produces some shrinkage in the fixation, interprets these as below: -
[DIAGRAM]
Secondly, the cocus:-
As I, and a lot of other people see it. [DIAGRAM] D-L-R, again ignorant of the cross-wall and all the rest; shrinking the nucleus considerably, interprets [TABLE] In other words, the man in simply God-damned ignorant about his material
[END PAGE THREE]
[BEGIN PAGE FOUR]
The amusing thing is that this error crops up with persistent regularity among inexperienced cytologists. All my associates laughed like drains when they saw it, without any explanation from me. They'd all made the same world-shaking discovery themselves, at one time or another, and found out the snag just as soon as they looked at the cell-wall stain.
The "fusion tubes" like many other such monstrosities, can be got any time on blood agar. They also have cross-walls, and are small, degenerate bacilli, in chains.
If D-L-R had taken the trouble to read my book, instead of merely looking at the pictures, he'd have seen his first error, at least, expounded.
Best wishes,
K.A. Bisset
Metadata Last Modified Date:
2017-01-19
Linked Data:
RDF/XML     JSON     JSON-LD     N3/Turtle     N-Triples