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 Barbara McClintock Papers

Letter from Barbara McClintock to Charles R. Burnham pdf (365,458 Bytes) transcript of pdf
Letter from Barbara McClintock to Charles R. Burnham
Part of a series of correspondence with Burnham on McClintock's research on csh-wx that would result in an article in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" later in 1931. McClintock sent a copy of the manuscript and inquired whether Burnham wanted to "go in with" her on the article. A note is also made of McClintock's simultaneous article with Harriet Creighton. Some data discussed.
Item is handwritten. Item is a photocopy.
Number of Image Pages:
5 (365,458 Bytes)
1931-06-11 (June 11, 1931)
McClintock, Barbara
Burnham, Charles R.
Original Repository: University of Minnesota, University Archives. Charles Burnham Papers
Reproduced with permission of the University of Minnesota, University Archives. Charles Burnham Papers
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH):
Exhibit Category:
From Ithaca to Berlin and Back Again, 1931-1935
Metadata Record The Order of the Genes C, Sh, and Wx in Zea Mays with Reference to a Cytologically Known Point in the Chromosome (1931) pdf (579,413 Bytes) ocr (16,730 Bytes)
Metadata Record A Correlation of Cytological and Genetical Crossing-Over in Zea Mays (1931) pdf (447,918 Bytes) ocr (12,971 Bytes)
Metadata Record Letter from Barbara McClintock to Charles R. Burnham (March 1, 1931) pdf (122,285 Bytes) transcript of pdf
Metadata Record Letter from Barbara McClintock to Charles R. Burnham (April 11, 1931) pdf (117,969 Bytes) transcript of pdf
Metadata Record Letter from Barbara McClintock to Charles R. Burnham (May 12, 1931) pdf (350,370 Bytes) transcript of pdf
Metadata Record Letter from Barbara McClintock to Charles R. Burnham (June 26, 1931) pdf (329,000 Bytes) transcript of pdf
Box Number: 3
Folder Number: 4
Unique Identifier:
Document Type:
Letters (correspondence)
Physical Condition:
June 11, 1931
Dear Charlie --
I am enclosing the manuscript for the paper. I have written it asd I think it ought to go. Sharp, Rhoades and Stadler have worked over it. I made it as short as possible as there could be so much detail which would swamp the meaning for what we want. The paper which goes with it is Harriet's "A Correlation of Cytological and Genetic Crossingover". I am growing more material to make the evidence wider in scope but I believe that this is not necessary for this paper.
The part marked in red across the page is the part which you are to do as you like with. I don't know whether you want to put in a table, make a statement or what. The figures I obtained from a leter [sic] you wrote in December. Maybe there are more data now. I think you will see what ought to be put in here to give the meaning intended. If you do not like it or anything else let me know. If you do not want to join with me I should feel bad for your data has been a key for me to work with. You may not want to take the responsibility since
you were not in close touch with this latter work when it was done. I hope you won't feel that way though but be frank about it and say what you please. Don't injure yourself to please me.
I am anxious to get Harriet's data in press as I have been advised to push it. Since this paper goes first in the same issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science I am anxious to get it off as soon as possible. I don't know how busy you are now and whether you can spare a few hours during the next few days to do it. I hope so. Let me know by a short note what the situation is so that I will know what to expect.
Concerning number 7. Emerson asked me to be certain to cross number 7 with chocolate pericarp. He grew the chocolate pericarp and I supplied the 2n plus 1 plants. Rhoades remarked that he was going to take care of the crosses, etc. He had talked it over with Emerson before I saw Emerson. He probably thought he was doing the easiest thing for all of us. I am sorry if you felt a bit upset about it. I am sure he is doing it as "something to get out of the way" rather than as a special problem. Therefore you ought to go ahead with what you have on number 7 and chocolate. You will be thru before he gets his data. I am sure there will be no hard feelings anywhere.
I am growing the material for you on the 6th smallest -- number 5. The ratios 7 to 4 obtained this summer will
complete it. So far I have: [diagram] which is ok for a trisome (x) ratio. I shall get v2 corn in soon in the same material. It looks suspicious enough, though. I shall be very much surprised if anything goes wrong.
I have not grown Beadle's material for sw until I find out about number 8. There is no use of fooling with it when I might be needlessly repeating. If you get f-br out let me know. I am running some crosses for it and will get it next spring, or better, summer as follows: 2n plus 1 b-lg plus x-n1. 2n plus 1 F1 will give low steriles in progeny. Low steriles will throw b-lg 2n plus 1 and f-br 2n plus 1 probably.
Have been here in Columbia 10 days. It was rather hard getting started as there was almost no equipment. Am in
order now and have started work. According to my notes I shall be in Pasadena in October. It all depends on how my work goes here when I shall get thru.
I believe the knob may be difficult to work in in all cases. There seems to be [diagram] type of synapsis in some cases. Looks as tho there was no counterpart to the knob (in length if not in quality). Therefore, opening out is not expected. I have evidence that crossing over occurs before MI and between early pro and ax -- probably according to Sox. The opening out to form () bis at dk is an expression of the force which breaks chiasmas. My evidence on crossing over is: [diagram] The knob came in on n chromosome when early prophase observed I find [diagram] In late prophase I find figures which are clearly crossovers [diagram] in these cases the chromatids were clear as were the spindle fiber regions. I don't believe we shall see an opening out like this in o-normals where are heterozygous: [diagram] since the knob extends out beyond the end of the homologous chromosome and can't get apart of
chromatids stay together 2 by 2. This seems to be the case in the figures I have observed.
Have some nice dope and trivalent synapsis in early prophase. I know now that when a univalent part is present it shows double, that is, shows the split. It is sometimes difficult to tell which is the 2-by-2 and which is the single part. Synapsis is only 2-by-2 for any 3 chromosomes. There is something contradictory or not understood. All 3 of the satellite chr. are together at the region which forms the nucleolus (the region) which is attached to the nucleoles [sic]. The chromatin part behaves as the trivalents do. I am wondering if it is chromosomes or chromatids which synapse 2-by-2. Am working on this now.
People have been walking in and out our my room making such a disturbance I can't keep concentrated. My letter will probably be quite uncoordinated. I hope you can make it out, though [?].
Will I see you in the fall? I hope so. There is so much to talk about besides business.
My regards to the "bunch" --
[written in bottom left, address: Waters Hall
University of Missouri
Metadata Last Modified Date:
Linked Data:
RDF/XML     JSON     JSON-LD     N3/Turtle     N-Triples