E. Nettleship to K. Pearson, 15th Nov. 1912.- External URL
- Correspondence Details
-
Sent From (Definite): Edward NettleshipSent To (Definite): Karl Pearson
- Current Holder(s)
-
Holder (Definite): University College London: Special Collections
- No links match your filters. Clear Filters
-
Sent fromEdward Nettleship
Description:
‘My dear K.P.
1) I muddled two of our puppies together. The one we have given to Spicer’s motor driver is Patty, born August 1911; she was tied with her father, Jack, when we were away this last summer but refused him; it is possible the thing was a bit mismanaged, or it may have been due to she & Jack (& Jill) having been together so much, but I think not for Jill is never so influenced.
The 3-4 months puppy Peggy is gone to a daughter of Dr Berry to Folkestone. If I had any idea that you could have taken them, or either of them, of course you would have had them; but I got the impression your hands were rather overfull during the last year or so.
2) Mrs Dew-Smith (of Rye, Kent) has been mating Ting with a coloured Peke. dog; I am not sure of all the results, but have written to her this morning & hope to fit all her details before very long, I know that the first litter followed this rule, all coloured.
3) If you find it worth while to send me a list of the papers by myself that I have sent you copies of I will send you any others, if there are any, that have not been sent hitherto. But I have not produced much this last year & you may have got all.
4) About the treasury. I of course know that I have behaved badly & I fear I shall more likely than not go on in that way;- it is so much the easiest. If I could do both the complete literature business[?] & also grub away at single pedigrees I would, but the literary/literature side is extremely burdensome because I have no languages, & it becomes almost a night-mare if I contract too moderate a job. The single-pedigree work fits my ways & limited powers better & I hope sometimes stirs up a man here & there to look out for & do corresponding things. – If I did anything for Treasury I fear it would have to be chiefly re-publication of stuff I have already done, perhaps better standardized & now & then with a small addition of children born since &c. I could be a sort of Omnibus paper most likely.
Anticipation – I am of course incurably [illeg.] & presumably wrong somewhere. This rough pencil pedigree is of course “fancy”, but does well enough. I understand you to say that such a case does not show that the disease ([circle with diagonal cross through]) has a tendency to appear *; or to enl[erminate?] [sic],* earlier in each successive generation.
Yrs,
E. Nettleship’
-
Sent toKarl Pearson
Description:
‘My dear K.P.
1) I muddled two of our puppies together. The one we have given to Spicer’s motor driver is Patty, born August 1911; she was tied with her father, Jack, when we were away this last summer but refused him; it is possible the thing was a bit mismanaged, or it may have been due to she & Jack (& Jill) having been together so much, but I think not for Jill is never so influenced.
The 3-4 months puppy Peggy is gone to a daughter of Dr Berry to Folkestone. If I had any idea that you could have taken them, or either of them, of course you would have had them; but I got the impression your hands were rather overfull during the last year or so.
2) Mrs Dew-Smith (of Rye, Kent) has been mating Ting with a coloured Peke. dog; I am not sure of all the results, but have written to her this morning & hope to fit all her details before very long, I know that the first litter followed this rule, all coloured.
3) If you find it worth while to send me a list of the papers by myself that I have sent you copies of I will send you any others, if there are any, that have not been sent hitherto. But I have not produced much this last year & you may have got all.
4) About the treasury. I of course know that I have behaved badly & I fear I shall more likely than not go on in that way;- it is so much the easiest. If I could do both the complete literature business[?] & also grub away at single pedigrees I would, but the literary/literature side is extremely burdensome because I have no languages, & it becomes almost a night-mare if I contract too moderate a job. The single-pedigree work fits my ways & limited powers better & I hope sometimes stirs up a man here & there to look out for & do corresponding things. – If I did anything for Treasury I fear it would have to be chiefly re-publication of stuff I have already done, perhaps better standardized & now & then with a small addition of children born since &c. I could be a sort of Omnibus paper most likely.
Anticipation – I am of course incurably [illeg.] & presumably wrong somewhere. This rough pencil pedigree is of course “fancy”, but does well enough. I understand you to say that such a case does not show that the disease ([circle with diagonal cross through]) has a tendency to appear *; or to enl[erminate?] [sic],* earlier in each successive generation.
Yrs,
E. Nettleship’
-
