I have got both your letters & have sent you a reassuring telegram! I rung up Standfast last Friday & he said he
didn't mind if your proofs were a week late & that a reasonable amount of alteration was alright, but he didn't
like people wanting to rewrite their papers completely at the page proof stage! He is a very reasonable chap & is well
described by his name -- nothing would rattle him, I imagine. All your alterations have gone in including your preferred
edition of the last para. & Joshua's "ineffective factor"! I presume you have retained your proof. On p.
92, l. 28, I have taken the liberty of slightly changing your amendment to "certain inhibitors (arsenate, citrate ec)
of enzymes which might possibly destroy the F+ agent . . . ". I had already done this when your letter arrived. Did
you notice a complete line has been left out of the bottom of p. 96? I have made the following alterations to Table 2. (1)
In the caption "F-state" + column headings "F-condition of parents," it reads as F- (F minus) state ec. I
have therefore deleted the "-" to avoid ambiguity; (2) I have indicated an [ . . . ] spacing between the lines following
"TLB1 + parents" & "TLB1 +Sr recombinants" & suggested bracketing everything below this & lowering
"TLB1 + Sr recombinants" to the middle of the brackets, thus:
[END PAGE ONE]
[BEGIN PAGE TWO]
I hope you approve of this. It will I think, be easier to read. Incidentally, your total for the last column of the 1st
set should be 916 & not 816. You underate the amount of work you did! The editor will get another final page proof &,
contrary to practice, he will send this to me, so if you have anything else of a minor nature, let me know. I have written
to the C.U.S., ordering 500[?] reprints for you & if they want immediate payment I will pay with pleasure & arrange
with you later. I think that's all about the paper, except that I think it reads well & clearly. Oh! 3 important
things I nearly forgot: (1) on p. 94 of the proofs, 1/2 way down the page -- "Moreover, crosses between an independent
occurrence of B17-F- ( 8) & TLB, -F+ an other F+ anxotrophs were found to have a very low fertility, . . . ". For
your original typescript I think you had "(#8)". What does this indicate & what will I put in the final proof?
Or will I delete the (8)? (2) Reference for (Davis, 1950), referring to ATCC9637 please! (3) Reference for (Cavalli, 1952)
on top of p. 97 please! These are blank in the "References." One other thing -- Lederberg's belief that ll.
21-29, p. 9 of his manuscript (which is the same as the one with the proofs) is too near[?] the American version -- I have
read this account in both papers; I cannot see any great similarity in phraseology, apart from the facts themselves, so have
left it as it stands. If the two versions are superficially alike it is simply because the same authors have been presenting
the same facts in a concise way. There are certainly no grounds for criticism.
28th. I have just received your telegram. It is nice of you to want to thank me for doing the manuscript & proof corrections
& I have added -- "The authors wish to thank Dr. W. Hayes for his invaluable help in correcting the manuscript &
proofs of this paper" -- as per telegram. Thank you! Incidentally, I wouldn't dream of sending you a bill for the
telegrams. The sum was very small. Sometime you will stand me a drink! You must excuse me now as I have a lot of work to
do. I will write again shortly about experiments.