The National Library of Medicine's Profiles in Science
program has made every effort to secure proper permissions
for posting items on the web site. In this instance, however,
it has either not been possible to identify or contact the
current copyright owner.
If you have information regarding the copyright owner,
please contact us at
Sorry if I got the wires crossed up somewhere. Why I didn't tell you that Delbruck was the reviewer I don't know.
He just shipped back the stuff having kept it thinking I was in New York. His criticisms and suggestions were the same as
1) cut theoretical derivation *
2) cut out 2ndary prototroph graphs and state results in words
3) Poisson[?] distribution means nothing
4) crossing over and supplementation several minor changes in wording
He didn't spot the mating type factor as being NG.
* He meant completely - - I believe that the kinetics formula should be left since many geneticists are particulate mathematicians
and not kinetics people.
[END PAGE ONE]
[BEGIN PAGE TWO]
Ryan wrote saying your suggestions were, as usual, excellent and that he did mean to suggest some prototrophs or otherwise
recombinants could be proved by plate syntrophy mutation (which I doubt, at least in large numbers ~100-10,000 since the
plates won't support enough growth to give a good chance for reversion).
A new form is enclosed. I'm out of graphs and my plates haven't arrived from Columbia yet so I hope you have the
old paper. Note the changes:
lessening of evidence for syngamy vs. other hypotheses increasing the quantitative aspect agglutination - is it ok to mention
you? It's your idea.
Ryan has been sending postcards of beautious[sic] native gals from all parts of SA. He's having such a wondrous time
in the jungles that he'll probably
become a systemalist- collector.