Back to top


On Winterbert's claims about the development of the morula and other research papers. On a paper by Roy Gillette.
Comments on the manuscript of 'Analysis of Development'.
On the status of the manuscript by January 11, 1952
On the length of the proposed chapters of 'Analysis of Development'; on revisions of chapter 1.
On the correction of the manuscript.
On Hamburger's review of Holtfreter's manuscript. On theories about induction: "I find that all this kind of speculating, including my own stuff on proteins, is rather cheap. I did it only because I thought it to be a little bit more fitting than what I had read about induction, especially in Waddington's revelations. Anybody today who takes the risk of interpreting induction in general terms is bound to be caught as a blunderer. I find that all these theories of Waddington, Dalcq, Barth etc. are not much else than a hitting upon an analogy and the attempt to elaborate upon it. Some of them sound a bit more pleasant, others less so, but all are 99% poetry. Harrison and Spemann were wise enough never to go far along the slippery road of speculations but they were nevertheless kept going by the phantasmagorias of Driesch [,] Weismann, Roux and the like. Anyway, persons who emit their theories abut induction should follow them up experimentally as far a[s] possible, otherwise they are just annoying."
On Jane Oppenheimer's and Willier's opinions on the manuscript.
Returning a manuscript by Holtfreter.
Comments on article on spinal ganglia in PNAS