October 28, 1952
Dear Elie:

Your paper "Sur le determination genetique de la lysogenie" just
came, and we have read it with considerable pleaeure. It is a very
lucid statement of the problem. There is very little that we can sug-
gest for ite improvement, but we should perhaps ask your consideration
of the following:

12
1) Reference § is now in page proof: Genetics, 1952, 37, 720.

2) There has been a certain amount of confusion on the mechankam
owing to the statement by Hayes of the lambda theory of recombina-
tion. He should be credited with this hypothesis (ref. 9) in your
paragraph 5, page 2.

3) The basic stocks should be tHoroughly characterized— there hag
already been some confusion in other papers that may make it diffi-
cult to correlate the work in different laboratories. On p. 6,

W-677 (and its ancestor, W-1 as should be stated) are characterized
most extensively in reference 5. I am not clear as to the nature of
"K-12 8" Ie 4t W-1485 (as described in our ms.)7 If so, it should be
V,® to begin with. If it was already ¥,* when you received it, it must

be something else, and this should be ascertained. In any cass, ite
history should be given in enough detail so that we can tell just what
it is.

4) Sevetal of ua had some difficulty 4n a full understanding of the
first paragraph, p. 14, to the extent that one suggested that "prendrait"
should be "perdrait". Since there hae been this difficulty, perhaps

the hypothesis and reasoning for the experiment on p.14 lines 5-8

should be explained more fully. I think 1% would be premature to dis-
cuss ouk transduction experiments, which seem to have very little direct
bearing on the crossing results. One solution, perhaps, is to delete
this paragraph, but thie 4s entirely for your own judgement.

5) With full respect for your parents, may I euggest that many of your

readers will confuse the author of the present paper with that of ref.

1 and 16. Would some notation (sr./jr.? or something else) be appropriate?

Ref. 16 may also be confusing as it presents a conception of phage as an
endogenous unit, even for its parasitic behavior, or have I perhaps an

incomplete understanding of it. The main accomplishment of your present
work would be the support 1% gives for prophage not as a cytoplasmic, but
as a nuclear determinant.

6) Reference 7 spell Heredity Title: Microbijenne.
Yours sincerely

have eend rt wrth for

Esther and Zoshua Leder-

beldr bevel ‘Ss! | berg