)EiJARTHENT OF GENETICS

THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
     COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE

Madison, 6

November 18, 1950.

Dr. T. $1. Sonneborn,
Department of Zoology,
Indiana University,
Bloomington, Indiana.

Dear Tracy: .

This letter concerns the project for republication of papers in
microbial genetics, which the University of '~'&sco-nsin Press has agreed
to undertake, and which we discussed briefly at various occasions. I
have waited this long to send you the list of titles because I hoped
to have your judgment at the most difficult stage, i.e., the transition
from a tentative to a definite list of titles. Such a list is enclosed
with this letter. 1 would appreciate it very much if you could study it

1 _  and make suggestions that might improve it, or make it a more useful

3  adjunct to your forthcoming (?) text.
,

Unfortunately, I can't resist a few words of explanation or agology,
probably along the lines of the introduction to the collection. The UY
Preas Committee, on the basis of a questionnaire (which was much too fussy
and was sent to too many people) has agreed to a volume of only about 300
ppo3 so as to keep "the cost at a level which will attract a moderate sale.
The title list is already of $his length, So that (except for a very short
paper) any amendations will have to displace one of the titles already
down. I have put a o next the'titlos I thought the most dispensable, but
would appreciate it if you would include the titles to be displaced in
any recommendations for change.

   In making these choices, I have had to keep in mind various elements
  of availability with respect to lengt??, copyrights, and original place
  of publication. I could not make any
< for example:              suitable inclusions for yeast genetics,
        Winga's publications are inextricably secured by copyright;
Lindegren's contributions are buried in the preponderant content of his
papers, and I couldn't justify Spiegelmn's work as the sole representative
  of yeast genetics, aside from the problem of chooLing a suitable papet.
  Yeast is a lacuna I shall simply have to apologize for. I would have liked
.$ very much to put in Ephrussi's acriflavine story - but will await your recom-
  nendation as to precisely which paper to ticlude.


f

.
1

If I may make some judgment on my o;~n efforts, the sections on bacteria,
phage, and paramecium are probably reaaonably well covered, within the
limitations of tie project. I am not especially happy about fungi or about
the enforced exclusion of yeast or algae, but don't know quite what to
do about it. It might have been a better idea to have restricted the area
to bacterial genetics, which because of the wide diversity of lines of
research lends itself best to this treatment. However, this restriction
would not best serve the immediate teaching neede which motivated the
volume, and in any evsnt, unless there is very strong sentiment to the
contrary, I sm already committed wi"J the Press to a more general essay.

There may be a brighter side to this,however. This project is very
much an experiment. A number of people have already indicated that, if
it is aucceseful, it should be extended to other fields (and I have heard
that Raper may be doin g something similar on myco-physiology at Chicago).
If so, it may turn out to be for the better that fields such as f?ungi and
protozoa are not d&eloped here to an extent which might preempt a more
detailed and satisfactory treatment. Along this line, Luria suggested patting
the volume out in 3cme loose-leaf or similar form which would facilitate
additions, and the idea seems sound, as well as reducing the binding costs
which are multiplied threefold in the retail price.

Finally (or almost finally), ,I have tried to avoid considerations of
personalities or priorities in selectWg the titles, hoping to make up for
it in the explanatory introduction. Tatum's name is, for exaple, grossly
under-represented. I hope that my other colleagues and seniors are going
to take comparable omissions in as good a spirit.

May I suggest the following fi&?ds from which substitutions might es-
pecially be considered and for,which specific recommendations would be ffery
helpful:

bacterial cytology ; mutagenesis           A(
fungi: ascus segregations ; non-ascomycetes * i. l-bTwwy~&~~~~hN
yeast: good cytoplasmic inheritance; mating ypes
       /'
protozoa --
algae- are any of Moewus' papers particularly suitable

You know that your comments will be considered very closely; unfortunately,
there are controlling factors which may make it impossible to follow all
of them even if I wished to.

P.S.  If you could possible spare a reprint (or bettt&two) of your 1943 ana
1948 papers, it would help considerably in setting up copy. They can be re-
turned tc you in reconstructed condition (as well, of course,
compliinetary copy of the book).                         as in a


,'

  23
gi&

6-3

G

30

2

21

10

52

22

I.2

28

go

7




0

18


11

16

Lucia md Delbruck 1943 Genetica  (Bactex+.al m-ta-tkm - varianm nmzaly%io)

ihur. C-enetics (St&ieWcal diotributicn 02 mtmrb and
~aasummnt of m&i&ion rates)

Bature   (origin of bactmial vnrian%s)

Gan%tfc%   ( rt3coi3bi.?atfon)

ExpQrientra  (biochmical mtanta)

3. Bact,  (dru.g-res~&$&3: sts? =;utat,ions)

Jo Zxp. i%d.  (pneumcoccus frnn3fsmtion)

Auatrr 3. Exp. i3i01. Eed. (iyoogh.ci~ky)

G6neticit   (recombination)

chM3tics  (izrultiplicity YY3aOtivatiffl)

R1.43 ( 13-b :;ouros~orn paper)

Sadlo @-Cconmd-?,  2.~44 Censt~Oa (~iO~JZW5pomta hstarokasybns)

Lhdsgren  19j3?     Torrey 3%. Club  (Aocus so~rsgstims)

Rxi.tt and Larq$ord I.947 Amer. 3. Botany  (Tenturia: hhsr. of pa-thogenicity)