E. Nettleship to K. Pearson, 10th Sept. 1910.- External URL
- Correspondence Details
-
Sent From (Definite): Edward NettleshipSent To (Definite): Karl PearsonDate: 10 Sep 1910
- Current Holder(s)
-
Holder (Definite): University College London: Special Collections
- No links match your filters. Clear Filters
-
Sent fromEdward Nettleship
10 Sep 1910
Description:
‘My Dear Pearson,
First – yours of 30 August – As to Usher’s material, I have written hum that I will look it through but that as I know much less about animals’ & birds’ eyes than he does I shall probably not venture to alter anything that he has written;- he is over-modest & I think v. tired for want of holiday.
A bitch (or a dog) to take Tong’s place – I can only suggest at the moment her daughter Marie-ban (No. 82 on draft ped. herewith) who is with Usher; I don’t know whether he wd. let her come back, but his space is not large & he has his hares[?], & might be glad. Ask him when he returns from his holiday.
The difficulty we find is that people get so terribly fond of these dogs when once they have them; “we are quite silly about” him or her is what several have written.
Mr. Clack would have sent Wee Tong but wrote just too late when own affairs were getting upset with move so had to put her off, & you will know how to deal with him about her now.
Data you want re: Pekingese hair – I return your letter in case you may want to see your questions & am putting what replies I can on separate sheet with it, also a photog. of Little Oo (question 4) which shows him but not his pedigree! – To be returned please (the photog. I mean)
... [re: construction of pedigree, help of Miss ‘Robinson is it?’] ... The difficulty of construction of a suitable diagram hinges on the polygamy & incest that is so frequent. It seems hopeless to keep to any horizontal stratification [note: ‘The only easy way I can see is to put a thick root from the polygamous ♂ & subdivide it?, but that may easily become clumsy.’] as in our ordinary pedigrees.
One reason against attempting anything final is that you wd. probably disagree with some of my connecting lines &c. & it is better you shd. do the standardizing as you have by now had much more experience than I have.
I will now go on, as I can, with the remaining refractions &c.; I have my original tables here as pattern.
This seems all for this time I think.
Yours sincerely,
E. Nettleship
...’
-
Sent toKarl Pearson
10 Sep 1910
Description:
‘My Dear Pearson,
First – yours of 30 August – As to Usher’s material, I have written hum that I will look it through but that as I know much less about animals’ & birds’ eyes than he does I shall probably not venture to alter anything that he has written;- he is over-modest & I think v. tired for want of holiday.
A bitch (or a dog) to take Tong’s place – I can only suggest at the moment her daughter Marie-ban (No. 82 on draft ped. herewith) who is with Usher; I don’t know whether he wd. let her come back, but his space is not large & he has his hares[?], & might be glad. Ask him when he returns from his holiday.
The difficulty we find is that people get so terribly fond of these dogs when once they have them; “we are quite silly about” him or her is what several have written.
Mr. Clack would have sent Wee Tong but wrote just too late when own affairs were getting upset with move so had to put her off, & you will know how to deal with him about her now.
Data you want re: Pekingese hair – I return your letter in case you may want to see your questions & am putting what replies I can on separate sheet with it, also a photog. of Little Oo (question 4) which shows him but not his pedigree! – To be returned please (the photog. I mean)
... [re: construction of pedigree, help of Miss ‘Robinson is it?’] ... The difficulty of construction of a suitable diagram hinges on the polygamy & incest that is so frequent. It seems hopeless to keep to any horizontal stratification [note: ‘The only easy way I can see is to put a thick root from the polygamous ♂ & subdivide it?, but that may easily become clumsy.’] as in our ordinary pedigrees.
One reason against attempting anything final is that you wd. probably disagree with some of my connecting lines &c. & it is better you shd. do the standardizing as you have by now had much more experience than I have.
I will now go on, as I can, with the remaining refractions &c.; I have my original tables here as pattern.
This seems all for this time I think.
Yours sincerely,
E. Nettleship
...’
-
