K. Pearson to E. Nettleship, 16th Aug. 1911.- External URL
- Correspondence Details
-
Sent From (Definite): Karl PearsonSent To (Definite): Edward NettleshipDate: 16 Aug 1911
- Current Holder(s)
-
Holder (Definite): University College London: Special Collections
- No links match your filters. Clear Filters
-
Sent fromKarl Pearson
16 Aug 1911
Description:
‘...
About the locus of publication of the dogs. We have put so much in about their coats & eyes into the Albinism monograph, that I think it is a pity to separate your paper from that. There is further another very important point: the pedigree will have to be a large double quarto sheet & I don’t know how we could get that into Biometrika. I think we should do better to publish it in the Albinism, but this will not be prohibitive of issuing a special offprint. We could quite well do that, although such offprints as far as my experience goes do not have much sale. At Galloway’s suggestion I issued an offprint edition of 100 copies of his Canary Breeding from Biometrika. It was rather costly because it involved extra printing of the coloured plates. I advertised it in all the canary papers & bird journals & had it on sale at the bird shows, & it sold, I think, 25 copies! I was very glad to dispose of the remainder recently for a small sum to the author. The paper really contained much information and experience & the plates were very good, but the breeder is a peculiar being & I expect he is not much better as a dog man than a bird man.
...
One of my pups is enormous. I think he will be a bigger dog than Ling, who is far above normal size, the other, the female, is far more active. I can see no sign of colour of any kind. Their eyes are ‘blue’, but Wee Choo does not like much handling of them, and even flew at a small boy who passed by the stable door today. She has a most excellent mother.
I suppose the owner of Fo would not exchange him for Wee Ling or the new puppy Jang Ren, or loan for six or eight months, so that Wee Choo might have a mating with him? This would be only half brother x sister & better than whole brother x sister. I should like to keep the two bitches Wee Choo & Tin Lo if they would not fight, but doubt if I can in our tiny house keep more than two or three dogs at most & I feel that Fo is probably from our standpoint the most important. We might do both Patty x Fo & Wee Choo x Fo, and this would be a good chance. I shall try when I get back to town to find somebody who will take one or two dogs & really be interested in the breeding side of the matter.
I think Galloway’s paper will draw attention to the whole point & probably lead to further discussions.
Yours very sincerely,
K. Pearson.’
-
Sent toEdward Nettleship
16 Aug 1911
Description:
‘...
About the locus of publication of the dogs. We have put so much in about their coats & eyes into the Albinism monograph, that I think it is a pity to separate your paper from that. There is further another very important point: the pedigree will have to be a large double quarto sheet & I don’t know how we could get that into Biometrika. I think we should do better to publish it in the Albinism, but this will not be prohibitive of issuing a special offprint. We could quite well do that, although such offprints as far as my experience goes do not have much sale. At Galloway’s suggestion I issued an offprint edition of 100 copies of his Canary Breeding from Biometrika. It was rather costly because it involved extra printing of the coloured plates. I advertised it in all the canary papers & bird journals & had it on sale at the bird shows, & it sold, I think, 25 copies! I was very glad to dispose of the remainder recently for a small sum to the author. The paper really contained much information and experience & the plates were very good, but the breeder is a peculiar being & I expect he is not much better as a dog man than a bird man.
...
One of my pups is enormous. I think he will be a bigger dog than Ling, who is far above normal size, the other, the female, is far more active. I can see no sign of colour of any kind. Their eyes are ‘blue’, but Wee Choo does not like much handling of them, and even flew at a small boy who passed by the stable door today. She has a most excellent mother.
I suppose the owner of Fo would not exchange him for Wee Ling or the new puppy Jang Ren, or loan for six or eight months, so that Wee Choo might have a mating with him? This would be only half brother x sister & better than whole brother x sister. I should like to keep the two bitches Wee Choo & Tin Lo if they would not fight, but doubt if I can in our tiny house keep more than two or three dogs at most & I feel that Fo is probably from our standpoint the most important. We might do both Patty x Fo & Wee Choo x Fo, and this would be a good chance. I shall try when I get back to town to find somebody who will take one or two dogs & really be interested in the breeding side of the matter.
I think Galloway’s paper will draw attention to the whole point & probably lead to further discussions.
Yours very sincerely,
K. Pearson.’
-
