From j.roote@XXXX Mon Jul 30  16:13:57  2001
To: rd120@XXXX
Subject: 35De = 35Dh?
Dear Rachel,
I'd like to flag up the possibility that 35De = 35Dh. We only have one
allele of each and 35DeAM2/35DhAS64 transheterozygotes have the
heldout wing phenotype typical of the common escapers of AM2/deletion
and AS64/deletion.
Also we have no aberrations which separate them.
J
From rd120@XXXX Tue Jul 31  14:17:17  2001
To: j.roote@XXXX
Subject: Re: 35De = 35Dh?
Hi John,
I'm trying to decide whether we should merge the gene records for 35De
and 35Dh.
According to data from
35De and 35Dh both lie between Gli and 35Ea (though it is only a
summary diagram).
According to the genome sequencing project (Geneseen), there is 3.5kb
between Gli and 35Ea, most of which is taken up by  BG:DS09217.4 . (We
have a note that l(2)35Dh may correspond to  BG:DS09217.4 , but no data
never mind proof). so it seems reasonable to suppose that
 BG:DS09217.4 , 35De and 35Dh might all collapse down to one thing in the end.
Your data seem to say that 35DeAM2 fails to complement 35DhAS64.
If you agree that this is what you want to say then we would, on the
basis of that data, merge the two gene records. However I notice that you
stop short of asking me to merge them. Natural caution? The two mutant
chromosomes seem to have come from different pasts so it doesn't seem
likely that they would share second site stuff does it?
Rachel.
From j.roote@XXXX Tue Jul 31  14:53:39  2001
To: Rachel Drysdale (Genetics) <rd120@XXXX>
Subject: Re: 35De = 35Dh?
>so it seems reasonable to suppose that
> BG:DS09217.4 , 35De and 35Dh might all collapse down to one thing in the end.
that's my guess.
>Your data seem to say that 35DeAM2 fails to complement 35DhAS64.
>If you agree that this is what you want to say then we would, on the
>basis of that data, merge the two gene records.
good idea \- let's be brave, DO IT!
J