80-1

KK/mk

Professor Alf Brodal
Anatomical Institute
University of Oslo
Karl Johans gate 47
Oslo 1, Norway
14 January 1980

Dear Alf,

Thank you for your letter of December 17th, and a copy of the final sections. I am very much satisfied and happy with the entire part of the manuscript. How I wish to come to Oslo again this January! But, unfortunately, I cannot find my time. Because I have to attend the Neuroscience meeting in Tokyo in the end of this month.

I do hope the review will be accepted in its present form, not being asked to cut short. Eagerly am I looking forward to the complete final version of the manuscript, and if possible, with a set of figures. I have not brought home the revised new figures last time. Although I know changed parts, since they are marked with pencil on my old figures of Zerox-copies. I follow your suggestions to read though the manuscript in Morioka and write to you.

Last Friday, I could have a talk on the telephone with Fred. I wish to obtain new circumstances from next Spring. However, it will not be easy……

We hope Inger and you will have a good trip and happy days in Spain. And three of us send you warm greetings and congratulations of your birthday.

With best wishes,
Cordially yours,

(Koki Kawamura)
　

80-2

AB/G January 14th 1980

Professor Koki Kawamura, M.D.
Department of Anatomy
School of Medicine
Iwate Medical University
Morioka 020
Japan


Dear Koki,

I have very good news! As you will see from the enclosed copy of a letter from Prof. Schiebler, our review is accepted for publication in the “Ergebnisse”. And it will probably not take very long before it will appear.

There is a questionnaire enclosed about the review, with questions about content of the “book”, to whom it is of interest etc. I can fill out these questions, but as you will see on the first page (copy enclosed) they ask about date of birth etc. Will you fill in the relevant data concerning yourself, and I will enter them on the first page.

Although I hope I have managed to include all new references entered after our first completion of the manuscript, suppose I should then send you a copy of the final reference list. Let me hear from you concerning this.

I am tremendously relieved that we do not have to recast and rewrite our review!

With kind regards,

Yours,
Alf
A. Brodal
　

80-3

AB/G January 15 1980


Professor Koki Kawamura, M.D.
Department of Anatomy
School of Medicine
Iwate Medical University
Morioka 020
Japan


Dear Koki,

Yesterday I forgot to send you page 7 of the questionnaire from Springer. I dispatch today a copy of this together with copy of the reference list. It would be fine if you could go through it and make sure that all new references added (you will find them on the copies of additions to old pages and in Chapter 5) are included.

As you may know, an index is also wanted. It should not include too many entries, but it should be easy to find reference to the essential points. Some cross references will be necessary. For example: HRP method, see Methods. And under Methods we list the various kinds referred to: HRP, Weigert, Fink-Heimer etc. etc. I wonder whether you could take upon you the trouble to prepare a first draft of the index. I will take care of the proof-reading, and of the entering of pages in the index.

I am sorry that I was not in the department when you phoned the other day. However, now everything has turned out very satisfactorily.

With kind regards,

Yours,
Alf
A. Brodal
　

80-4

25 Jan. ‘80

Dear Alf,

Happy birthday to you!
Thank you very much for your kind letter of January 14th and 15th. I received with delight and enclosed copy of letter from Prof. Schiebler, list of references and questionnaires.

I am returning the questionnaires, enclosed. Below, I just write
�@ Reference list, checked and all right!
�A I’m happy to take care to prepare a first draft of the index. I’ll do this as soon as I
return from Tokyo (I’ll stay there from 25th to 29th Jan).
�B I’ll read carefully again (and again) the manuscript and references in Feb. and write
to you later.
�C Enclosed you will find a copy of my curriculum vitae. I’ll be happy if you and Fred
could just glance through it.

So long, best wishes to Inger and you. Hoping you will have an enjoyable journey.

From Koki, Takako joins me.
　

80-5

AB/G February 1st 1980


Professor Koki Kawamura, M.D.
Department of Anatomy
School of Medicine
Iwate Medical University
Morioka 020
Japan


Dear Koki,

Under separate cover I am sending a copy of the final edition of the questionnaire concerning our review.

And thank you for your letter of Jan. 25th. I am glad that you can take care of preparing a list of words for the index. For practical reasons I suppose I take the proof-reading here.

I may mention in passing that on my 70th birthday no special arrangements (like that in Sandefjord) were made. A small arrangement in the institute and a party for the family (including grandchildren) at Continental were both very nice.

I will write you a longer letter later when I am finished with all my letters of thanks.

Kind regards to Takako, Yoko and yourself,

From
Alf
A. Brodal
　

80-6

22/Feb. ‘80

Dear Alf,

I am sending you herewith a draft of the index. Please give me your comments; I will revise it.
I hope you enjoyed your journey. Thank you very much for your letters and photo.
I will write you, tomorrow again.

Yours,
Koki
　

80-7

KK/yk

Professor Alf Brodal
Anatomical Institute
University of Oslo
Karl Johans gate 47
Oslo 1, Norway
23 February 1980

Dear Alf,

Yesterday I sent you a draft of the index by express mail. I have taken care not to include too many entries as you suggested. If it is not satisfactory, please tell me the points for further revision. I am happy to take care of the work. Next time, I can do it quickly. Thank you very much for your kind letter of February 1st with a nice picture of your portrait. All of us are delighted and it has been placed in a frame that is put on my desk. And thank you for a copy of the questionnaire.
May I ask you to do me a favour?
1. I would like to have 30 copies of the book that will be paid from our University. So please note this when you are asked from the publisher.
2. Since some copies should be given to Japan Society for the Promotion of Sciences, I would ask you, if you agree, to acknowledge to the Society for giving me the travel and research grant. For political reasons, I consider this useful.
3. I was asked yesterday from Tokyo University to present main works of mine for the professorship, and I wish to include this review article and show them in manuscript form. I would ask your permission to do this. But the manuscript that I have is dirty and some parts are uncertain whether they are already corrected or not. If you give me a permission and kindly send me one set of a copy of the final manuscript, I should be most grateful.
I am sorry that I ask you the trouble. When I notice possible mistakes and so on in the manuscript hereafter, I will inform you. Thank you again for having given me such a wonderful opportunity to invite me to this memorable work. I am very happy, and Takako, Yoko join me sending Inger and you our kindest regards and warmest greetings.
With best wishes,
Yours,

(Koki Kawamura)
　

80-8

28 Feb. 1980

Dear Koki,

I have received your letter of Feb. 23, and the draft of the index. I will look through it carefully, and see if it might be desirable to make any changes. Now to your questions.

1. When I receive the questionnaire of reprints I will take care to order 30 copies for you. Previously, and I think it is still so, the authors of papers in the Advances get a honorarium for their paper. If this is still valid, we will of course show this equally. The reprints will probably be rather expensive, and when people from this department have previously published papers in the Advances, they have used the honorarium to defray the expenses of the reprints. If we can use the same procedure, it might of course happen that you can order more than 30 copies for your honorarium. Or will 30 be sufficient?

2. I have written a few lines of acknowledgement which I suggest we may send to the printer, and have entered reference to your grant. As you say, this may be favorable for you. A copy is enclosed. Please make desirable changes and return it.

3. As to the copy of the review I wonder how soon you need it. If there is no hurry you may tell Tokyo University that a copy of the proofs will be submitted in due time. As you will understand, it will be rather laborious (and costly) to have a new copy made from the copy I have here (220 pages + 17 pages of figure legends and 38 pages of references, altogether 275 pages). What about the illustration? I do not have copies of all of them. But perhaps it will be sufficient with the text? I feel it would be too much to ask one of our typists to take care of this job since they are very busy, unless one of them could do it in her spare time and get a small honorarium for the job. Likewise, the cost of paper and using the machine would come on our departments’ annuum, which is very tight now. I do not like to ask for this favor, but if you could obtain money to defray these expenses it would of course be otherwise. Let me hear from you what solution you prefer. It would of course, also be possible that I sent you the copy I have for copying in Morioka, but I do not like the thought of not having a copy lying here, if anything should happen to the original.

Since Miss Gorset is not at work at present (she has difficulties with a knee) I apologize for sending you a hand-written letter, but I hope you will decipher it. We spent a fortnight recently at Lanzarote in the house of some friends. Now I am expecting an avalanche of proofs for the review and particularly book!
Please give Inger’s and my best regards to Takako and Yoko!
Kind regards from
Alf
　

80-9

14 March 1980
Dear Alf,

Thank you for your letter of February 28th and a copy of the acknowledgements. I am returning this after having entered the years (from 1977to 1979) during which I got the fellowship. I am grateful to you for the description.
As for the number of reprints, I wish to ask you to order 50 (fifty) copies for me, if we can use the privilege （I understand this is the reduction of the cost for authors’ private use）.
Concerning the copy of the review, I understand the situation. Since I thought, from your letter, you had kindly permitted to submit the manuscript to Tokyo University, I sent it a few days ago to the Board (deadline was 10th of March). The copy was taken from the one I have here. Although parts of the manuscript are dirty with colour pencils etc entered after word, I don’t think it is unreadable even when copied. I would be very grateful if you could send me a copy of the proof when you receive it later. I can defray the cost and honorarium for the job. I may add that the manuscript and figures I have here is sufficient for discussion by communication. I am now looking forward to a good news from the Tokyo University. It will probably be within a month.
Presently, we are revising a draft of the pontocerebellar paper with the autoradiography. Additional new findings from experiments of NRT injections are included. I expect to finish the work before summer comes. Could you please read through the manuscript before we submit to, e.g., Neuroscience?
We hope all is well with your family. Takako, Yoko and I are fine and we all send our best regards to Inger and you and to your dear family members.
Looking very much forward to seeing you again and also to the textbook and the review.
Best wishes,
From Koki
P.S.
A copy of the summary (Onodera, Kw《NSL:80, in press, Supple》) in enclosed together with a sheet of the acknowledgements.

Just now, when I’m going to close the envelope, I received your letter of 7th of March with the corrected draft of an index. Thank you very much! After revision, I’ll send it back. Koki
　

80-10

AB/eg March 7th, 1980

Professor Koki Kawamura
Department of Anatomy
School of Medicine
Iwate Medical University
Morioka 020, Japan


Dear Koki,

Enclosed I return your draft of an index with some suggestions for changes. In the beginning of each line I have sometimes entered figures 2 and 3 for your orientation. All these words ? to be started with a small letter ?are subordinate to the main reference word, beginning with a capital letter. 2 indicates the first set of subheadings, starting some 2 or 3 letters to the right of the main word. 3 indicates the next subheading (item covered collectively by words of category 2) and begins from 4 or 6 letters to the right of the beginning of the line.　

As you will see, I find that it might be adequate to refer to the connections of particular subdivisions of the olive, and I suggest that this is made by listing under Inferior olive “subdivisions and their connections”. This means of course that reference has to be made to, for example nucleus s, in many places, and we will have to enter several page numbers, but for the reader it will be an advantage to have in the index a list of the efferent projections and the afferents of a particular subdivision. We might make even separate reference to afferent and efferent connections, but this, I believe, will be unnecessarily detailed.

For many references there will be quite a number of pages to refer to. It will be of interest for the reader to find reference in the index especially to pages where general points or principles are discussed. For this reason I have entered some relevant words, such as somatotopical pattern. There may be more, and you may think it over if we should include more.

It would be fine if you could go through the altered index list and have it retyped, then it is better to see everything. Still we may have to make changes when we are starting to pick out pages to refer to. But it will save much time that we have a main list ready when we have to start with the indexing.

With kind regards, also to Takako and Yoko from Inger

And yours,
Alf
A. Brodal
　

80-11

AB/eg March 13th, 1980

Professor Koki Kawamura
Department of Anatomy
School of Medicine
Iwate Medical University
Morioka 020, Japan


Dear Koki,

Today I am sending you, divided into two parcels, a photostatic copy of our review. In a previous letter I sent you a suggestion for “Acknowledgements”. You may have a copy made of this, when you have completed it, to insert in the entire copy as page no. 221.

Since you might be in a hurry for submitting the copy (you do not mention any date in your letter) we have had it made already now, before I have received your reply, since I suppose that the arrangement suggested may be acceptable to you. The price for the paper used is 0.35 Kr. per sheet. This makes 98,−N.Kr.. Mrs. Gregersen has done the copying during her office hours, and does not want any honorarium for this job. A bill for the paper is enclosed if you need this.

Wishing you success with your application in Tokyo and

kind regards
yours,
Alf
A. Brodal
　

80-12

KK/yk

Professor Alf Brodal
Anatomical Institute
University of Oslo
Karl Johans gate 47
Oslo 1, Norway 19 March 1980


Dear Alf,

Thank you for your letters of March 7th and 13th together with a draft of the revised index. I am particularly grateful to you, and Mrs. Gregersen, for sending me the bulky copy of the complete manuscript of our review. I have sent a copy of this to Tokyo University asking them to exchange the old one (cf. my letter of March 14th, a copy from my old manuscript) for the new one. I am sure they will accept my request and I feel myself very happy. I gladly defray the cost you mentioned plus alpha by a check, although I think it will take some time to make it in a local city like Morioka. A letter of many thanks will soon be sent from me to Mrs. Gregersen.
Having read through about 1/3 ~ 1/2, up to now, of the new one, I realized with gratitude and happiness that the manuscript is very satisfactory. After careful reading, I will write you later.
I am enclosing a revised version of the index with minimum entries of page numbers (only the main one, do you think that more detailed page numbers should be entered?) referred to the manuscript. This is made in a hurry. We may of course think of new entries and make the list more complete. Could you tell me the approximate deadline for making a final form of the index? And your comments and suggestions.
We will spend this week-end in the mountain. In the beginning of April, for 4-6 days, I will leave Morioka to see my mother in law and to attend our annual anatomical meeting, then go deep again to the olive and pons.
Best wishes to Inger and you from three of us.

Yours,

(Koki Kawamura)
Encl.
　

80-13

AB/G April 14th, 1980

Professor Koki Kawamura
Department of Anatomy
School of Medicine
Iwate Medical University
Morioka 020
Japan


Dear Koki,

I am very late in replying to your letter of March 19th and the revised index. This is due to the fact that in the last 2 weeks I have been full time occupied with proof-reading for “Neurological Anatomy”. For the same reason I have not managed to look in detail at your revised index draft. I will do that somewhat later, but I do not believe we are in any hurry, because the final index can only be made when we have had the page proofs.

When we get the galley proofs, it will be necessary to have a final check on the references, to see once more if all papers cited are in the list, and if the years of appearance have been correctly printed, spelling of names etc. I wonder whether it would be possible for us to share this proof-reading job, so that I correct the text and you check all the references? Maybe I could then send the galley proofs to you after I have done my part, or perhaps better vice versa? It would be an advantage of course, if we could get two sets of galley proofs, since you presumably now do not have a copy of the final ms.
Best wishes for all three of you,

Yours,
Alf
A. Brodal

P.S. Under separate cover I am sending you a copy of our paper with Karen Berkley on double labeling. A.B.
　

80-14

KK/yk

Professor Alf Brodal
Anatomical Institute
University of Oslo
Karl Johans gate 47
Oslo 1, Norway
22 April 1980

Dear Alf,

Thank you for your letter of April 14th. For a week I have got a flu and have been under the bad weather. I hope I will get well soon. I can easily realize that you are and will be busy with proof-reading for the new text-book.
Of course, I am happy to do a final check on the references as you suggest. I also think that it would be an advantage if the press could send me also a set of galley proofs at the same time. If it will be possible, it will certainly save time. I should be grateful if you could ask the publisher if it would be possible to send each set of galley proofs to each of us simultaneously, one to Oslo and another to Morioka, in order to expedite matters. As a matter of fact, I have a copy of the final manuscript that I reproduced from the one you kindly sent to me last March. Therefore I can do the reference check on the manuscript before I will receive the proof on which I will check again. As for the cost of the manuscript, a check of us$20.00, that will cover the cost of N. Kr. 98.00, has been sent to Fred, Head of the institute, a few days ago.
Thank you very much for sending me a copy of your paper on double labeling. I am looking forward to seeing the paper, presumably in a few days, since usually it will take some time more than the envelope of the letter.
Everyday except Saturday in the afternoon, until the beginning of June, I work with students in the dissection-room. I am waiting a good news from Tokyo, but situations are very severe.
Takako sends Inger her best regards. Best wishes to you from


(Koki Kawamura)
　

80-15

Professor Alf Brodal Heidelberg, 29 April 1980
Anatomical Institute im 2121
University of Oslo
Karl Johans gate 47
Oslo 1, Norway


Advances in Anatomy, Embryology and Cell Biology
The Olivocerebellar Projection: A Review

Dear Professor BRODAL,

Your manuscript has now been copyedited. The copyeditor has carefully read the manuscript for language style and has corrected the literature and marked the manuscript according to our guidelines. To be sure that any changes in the style have not caused a change of meaning, I am returning the manuscript to you under separate cover and kindly ask you to check the copyeditor’s changes and to answer the queries he has noted on the yellow tags. In general, the number of footnotes in the manuscript is very high and where possible, the copyeditor has incorporated them into the text. Furthermore, in several instances the petit marking has been eliminated. Excessive use of petit is not only costly but it also distorts the type face of the text.

I do hope that this will not inconvenience you too much and I thank you for your assistance in advance.

Looking forward to receiving the manuscript again, I remain,

Sincerely yours,
Ingrid Marz

PS: The original figures have been kept here.
　

80-16

AB/G May 12th, 1980

Professor Koki Kawamura, M.D.
Department of Anatomy
School of Medicine
Iwate Medical University
Morioka 020
Japan

Dear Koki,

Thank you for your letter of April 22nd. I hope you are now restored from your flu.
I am writing you now to inform you that some days ago I got our manuscript with the copy-editor’s suggestions for linguistic improvements, etc. There are only minor changes, but I will read it though carefully. I am in doubt whether it will be appropriate to make changes with small print sections etc., as suggested, and where not I will ask to have the original arrangement restored.

The copy-editor has checked the references, in so far that all papers quoted (except a few, Mizuno, ‘ 74, for example) are present, so what would be left for us will be to make sure that the volume numbers etc. are as they should be.

I will ask that one copy of the galley proofs is sent to you when it is ready. If that is possible, you might have a look also on the text to see whether we will spot more errors. − I enclose photostatic copy of the letter from Springer, and will write you again when I have gone through the manuscript.

Kind regards to all three of you,

From
Alf
(A. Brodal)
　

80-17

Copy to Professor Koki Kawamura.


AB/G May 19th 1980

Ms. Ingrid Marz
Springer-Verlag GmbH & Co. KG
Postfach 10 52 80
Neuenheimer Landstrasse 28-30
6900 Heidelberg 1
Germany/W

Dear Ms. Ingrid Marz,

I have finally managed to go through your copy-edited version of Brodal and Kawamura: The Olivocerebellar Projection: A Review. I have been somewhat delayed because I have just been reading proofs and preparing the index for the third edition of which will be published by the Oxford University Press in October-November this year. I hope my delay has not caused you any inconvenience.

On the whole I have few objections to the changes in phrasing that you suggest. In other places, however, your changes have distorted the meaning or they do not make clear the reservations necessary. In these places I must implore you to accept our original choice of terms.

Before proceeding, it is essential for me to explain some points of view concerning the publication of scientific papers. As a footnote (sic!) I might add that I have been writing numerous original articles and reviews during the last 40 years in addition to some textbooks and monographs (see “Who is Who”). Furthermore, I do believe that my colleagues in the field would testify that my writings are usually clear and easy to follow. (I enclose a copy of a pamphlet for the third edition of Neurological Anatomy.) There can be little doubt that the main requirement to a scientific paper is that it is written so that the reader can assimilate the information and easily grasp the views of the writer.

I can understand that the publishers want to keep the expenses as low as possible, and that the cost of using small print and footnotes is considerable. However, the main point is the scientific value of the paper (and this is also what primarily determines the publisher’s renomme among scientists). It is asked whether my frequent use of small print and footnotes has been approved. I suppose it is the question of approval by the Managing Editor, Professor Schibler. I did not have any objections from him concerning this subject. His letter when I submitted the review was very complimentary. That I myself for many years have been one of the editors of Advances (and corrected and laboured with many papers for it) does not count much in this connection.

I may inform you that the use of passages with small print and each footnote has been made after serious deliberations. You mention somewhere that small print is used for case histories etc. In this review there is little that would correspond to case histories. The guiding principle in the use of small print has been to select for this, data, findings, considerations etc. referring to the subject but not being essential for the understanding and the following of the main lines of thought. The average reader will skip these passages, but those who are working in the field will appreciate to find the information contained. In my scientific writings during some 40 years I have generally tried to adhere to the guidelines I found in “Zeitschrift fur die gesamte Neurologie und Psychiatrie” in 1939. Their point 8 runs like this: “Die Beschreibung von Methodik, Protokollen und anderen weniger wichtigen Teile ist fur Kleindruck vorzumerken. Die Lesbarheit des Wesentlichen wird hierdurch gehoben.” The underlinings are mine. I think this is a good advice. However, unless one is to some extent familiar with the field of research and the subject, it is not possible to evaluate this problem! Somewhat similar arguments may be adduced for the use of footnotes. In general they will contain minor, but relevant and interesting, data, reservations, and the like, which, if included in the text, would make it difficult to read and awkward. So I implore you to rely on our judgment in this matter. Likewise, we have good reasons for using quotation marks (also in some places where you have deleted them). This applies also to sentences in italics.

In order to make things too difficult, I have left your incorporation of a footnote in the text in its place if the note is just one sentence, but then it must be in parenthesis! When the footnote is somewhat longer, I can in some places accept its disappearance if the sentences are put in small print. In some cases, I must insist that a footnote should be a footnote. As a footnote relevant to this item, I may mention that in the third edition of Neurological Anatomy, there are 12 Chapters, and in some of them there are more than 60 footnotes and numerous passages in small print. Oxford University Press has not urged me to change this. It is not acceptable that a person who does not know the subject, on his (her) own, undertakes such changes. I must confess that very often when I got across these attempts at “improving” the text, I got furious. A scientific paper is an intellectual work! What if the owner of an art gallery undertook “improvements” of the paintings he has to sell?

I have pasted slips in the margin of the manuscript where there are queries, and elsewhere where I have pertinent comments. In many places I have not found it necessary to explain in detail why I do not agree with the copy-editor’s suggestions. I beg you to rely on my judgment in these matters.

I note that you have suggested changes in the reference list. Thus, you have numbered the papers of say Mizuno et al., chronologically, and not according to the alphabet and used 1973a, 1973b etc. Although I can see some advantage in this, personally I would prefer what is still customary in most journals: to have the reference list arranged strictly in the alphabetical order. One may, nevertheless, refer to the papers as Mizuno et al. 1973a, 1973b etc. without it being necessary that they appear in this sequence in the list. As far as I can see, this chronological order is not followed consistently; see, for example, under Brodal et al., Groenewegen et al., Hoddevik et al. It appears strange and confusing that, for example, Fox and Williams are listed before Fox and Andrade. S. Kawamura and K. Kawamura are two different persons. Etc. etc. Personally I would certainly keep the alphabetical order. People are accustomed to this and will be confused by the chronological pattern, which is of secondary interest. But, I believe the author has nothing to say in this matter, and I cross my fingers.

I am somewhat astonished that in the legends you ad the journal where a paper has been published and not only the author(s). This must certainly increase the cost of printing as much as several footnotes, and I can tell you that the readers, when studying an illustration, are interested in the authors. It is of quite secondary interest where the illustration has been published, and can be seen from the reference list.

Finally a few special remarks. The name of Darkeschewitsch in Darkschewitsch in whatever language it is written. It is customary in the literature to speak of crus�Tand�Uand not crura�Tand�U. You will find other comments on the attached slips, and answers to the questions there.


I appreciate the very conscientious work of the copy-editor, but must deeply regret that he (she) has gone far beyond his (her) competence concerning the evaluation of the phrasing of the text. I have once had a corresponding experience about 1960 with Experimental Neurology, and have never sent a paper to this journal after that. When I submit a paper to the J. Comp. Neurol., Experimental Brain Research or Brain Research etc., there are usually only a very few purely linguistic changes. So you may understand that I was astonished when I received the copy-edited manuscript, and by and by my irritation gradually rose.

I hope you will excuse my being frank in my comments, and I hope they may be of some value to future copy−editing of manuscripts, also those written by less experienced people.

With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
A. B.
A. Brodal, M.D.
Professor emeritus


P.S. 1: Please send a set of galley proofs both to Professor Kawamura and me.
P.S. 2: Copy of this letter is sent to Prof. Schiebler and Prof. Kawamura.
　

80-18

AB/G May 20th 1980

Professor Koki Kawamura, M.D.
Iwate Medical University
Morioka 020
Japan

Dear Koki,

I have now gone through the copy-edited version of our manuscript. I enclose copy of my letter to the copy-editor, Ingrid Marz. It was a very frustrating job. The copy-editor, as you will gather from my letter to Ms. Marz, had moved footnotes up in the text, and in a number of places he had altered the meaning of a sentence. As you may understand from my letter to Ms. Marz, I was really furious. Unfortunately, there were some references in the list, which we had not inserted in the text (for example, Szabo and Albe-Fessard; Kunzle, Oka et al. ’79; Dahl and Mugnaini, and some more). I found that it would be too cumbersome to insert them now, so I have skipped them.

After having finished this little inspiring job and the preparation of the index for “Neurological Anatomy”, we will now take a few days holidays up at Tuddal. We hope the fine weather we have had here recently, will continue.


With best regards to all three of you,
From
Inger and Alf
(A. Brodal)
　

80-19

KK/yk MS-correction の内容

Professor Alf Brodal
Anatomical Institute
University of Oslo
Karl Johans gate 47
Oslo 1, Norway
31 May 1980

Dear Alf,

Thank you for your kind letters of may 12th and 20th, and copies of correspondence with Ms. Marz, Springer Verlag. I understand, and am in complete agreement with you in, that the copy-editor had done bad and insensible changes in the manuscript. As for me, I deeply apologize the delay of my response to your letter in correcting the text and references.
In the following, I describe what I have noticed.
1. Szabo and Albe-Fessard (1954) is quoted in line 4 of page 64.
2. Groenewegen and Voogd (1977) in line 11 of page 139 is a mistake of Bigare and Voogd (1977 ? I cannot find this paper in my office)?
3. There is no paper of Mizuno (single author) in 1974. Therefore Mizuno (1974) in line 6 of page 9 should be deleted.
4. Following articles listed in the references are not inserted in our final manuscript. They are Batini and Pumain (1971), Hoddevik and Walberg (1979), Ishikawa, Kawaguchi and Rowe (1972), Kotchabhakdi and Walberg (1977), Kunzle (1977), Lasek (1970), Linaut and Martin (1978b), Mugnaini and Dahl (1975), Oka, Jinnai and Yamamoto (1979).
5. I confirmed that all the other references are quoted in the text.
6. since Linauts and Martin (1978b) is deleted from the reference list on page R.24, Linauts and Martin (1978a) should be L. and M. (1978) in the reference list (page R.23).
In the text no changes are necessary, since a is not put in all parts quoted on pages 135, 137, 147, 150 and 153.
7. A problem arises how should we treat with three papers of Mizuno et al. (1973)−most parts are written like this−with different combination of 4-5 authors in the text. Cf. pages R.27-28. a) leave it as we have written in the text? or b) describe all author’s names? or c) put 1973a, 1972b and 1973c in the reference list? Please give me your suggestion. If you decide c), I will check in the text and put one of these figures (a, b, c) in each quoted part.
8. Berkley, Brodal and Walberg (1980) should be changed to Brodal, Walberg and Berkley (1980) in the text and list.
I describe below other minor changes in the text which may easily be made when proof-reading.
9. Line 19 of page 8: Llinas
10. Line 2 of page 12: Ramon-Moliner
11. Line 5 of page 18: LaVail and LaVail (1972): Retrograde axonal transport in the central nervous system, Science 30 (1972), 1416-1417 should be added in the reference list. If we don’t, we can change from 1972 to 1974. I think, however, it is better to quote the paper of Science (1972).
12. Line 6 of page 35: put ventral before paraflocculus, if possible.
13. Line 15 of page 45: put KH before 53L.
14. Page 56, Footnote 17: change from 1977a to 1977b
15. Line 11 of page 76: change from 1976 to 1967
16. Line 15 and 16 of page 84: put (1977) after Groenewegen and Voogd. Unnecessary?
17. Line 1 of page 110: LaFleur
18. Line 2 from the bottom of page 118: (1977)
19. Line 20 of page 155: Mizuno, Mochizuki, Akimoto, and Matsushima (1975) to 1973.
20. Line 3 of page 163: better to write Tolbert, Bantli and Bloedel (1977) rather than to say Tolbert et al. (1977), since there are two papers of Tolbert et al. (1977) of different combination of authors. Cf. pages R.34-35.
21. Line 2 of page 183: Groenewegen et al. (1979), not Groenewegen and Voogd.
22. Line 20 of page R.19: Vol. 2, 110-112 (1979). Insert.
23. Line 13 of page R.20: 1917, not 1916.

I hope from now on, until we receive galley proofs ? thank you very much for kindly having asked the Springer to send a set of galley proofs also to me ? , that there will be no serious errors to be found in the manuscript. We hope you have enjoyed your holidays at Tuddal. We remember the beautiful spring of May in your country.
With best wishes to Inger and you from Takako, Yoko and me.

Cordially yours,

(Koki Kawamura)
　

80-20

Prof. Kawamura
for your information
Ingrid Marz


A.Brodal, M.D. Heidelberg, June 11, 1980
Professor emeritus
Anatomical Institute
University of Oslo
Karl Johans gate 47
(Domus media)
Oslo 1 / Norway


Advances in Anatomy, Embryology and Cell Biology
The Olivocerebellar Projection


Dear Professor BRODAL,

I still have to thank you for your letter of May 19th, 1980 and for returning the manuscript to us with your comments which I discussed with our copyediting department.

I regret that there has been a misunderstanding regarding the copyediting of your paper. We always regard the changes made by our copyeditors as suggestions pending the author’s approval. Unfortunately, I must admit, that the copyeditor was rather overzealous to reposition the footnotes prior to your consent. I am sure that it was not his intention to discredit your scientific work. After going through the manuscript again, we felt it best to reposition all the footnotes to their original place in order to maintain the flow of the main text. We will also retain all the italics you have marked and any other change you prefer to be kept in the original form.

We shall retain the ELSE-CIBA styling of the references since it has not only been adopted by Springer-Verlag but by many other major publishers throughout the past years. The basic concept of this system is that “the purpose of citations (in the text) and references (in the list) is the identification and retrival of documents. The connection between citation and reference is made by repetition of the author’s name and the year of publication cited. Since references with three or more authors are cited in the text with the name of the first author and the year of publication, it is only logical under the mentioned concept that the references be listed chronologically to ensure the fastest way of finding the reference for the reader. We would be very pleased if you could accept our decision to adhere to the CIBA guidelines in this respect.

Once again, I am sorry that this misunderstanding arose and we hope that all difficulties can now be considered cleared. Unless we hear from you to the contrary, we will proceed with the production of the manuscript.

This means, that after the changes have been made, we will forward the manuscript to our production editor, Ms. Claremont in Munich since the technical production of this series is carried out by our affiliate the J. F. Bergmann Verlag.

As requested in your letter, galley proofs will be sent to you and Prof. Kawamura.

Sincerely yours,
Ingrid Marz

CC: Prof. Schiebler
Prof. Kawamura
　

80-21a

AB/G June 17 1980

Professor Koki Kawamura, M.D.
Iwate Medical University
Morioka 020
Japan


Dear Koki,

It has taken some time before I have got down to reply to your letter of May 31st. In the meantime, as you will see from the copies of letters I received from Ms. Marz and Professor Schiebler, it appears that things may be smoothed out, and that we, hopefully will get our original footnotes etc. restored.

The copy-editor had gone through the reference list very carefully and found those references you list in your paper as not being mentioned in the text. I do not have a copy of the changed manuscript, but I remember that I inserted Batini and Pumain, and that I deleted most of the others, such as Lasek, 1970; Ishikawa et al., 1972; Kotchabhakdi and Walberg, 1977; Kunzle, 1977. Most of them bear a very peripheral relation to the subject, and were probably put in the reference list with the intention that they should be incorporated in the text. No harm is done in deleting them, however. Concerning Linauts and Martin, 1978a and b we will have to check the final text. I do not remember if the zealous copy-editor had deleted ’78b. Mizuno, ’74 (a phantom) is deleted. Concerning the papers of Mizuno et al. the copy-editor has “solved” this according to the principles if Springer, as you will see. They have adopted a new system!

As to the other points you mention, we will have to take them into account when we get the proofs. I suppose the best way to handle this is that you send your corrected copy of proofs (when you get it) to me, and that I then transfer your corrections to my copy (if the corrections are not there already), so that the printer has one corrected proof only. I believe we have now only to wait for the proofs.

We have had a very nice summer so far. We spent a few fine days up in Tuddal. In a week’s time we are going to some friends in Sandefjord to celebrate midsummer night with them. In July we will go to Venezia and to Pisa to take part in a symposium in honour of Professor Moruzzi.

Fortunately, I am now almost finished with the book. It is scheduled to appear in October-November. So I hope we can see the proofs of our review at a time when I have finished with the book.

I hope you are all well and will have a good summer. Are there any news about the chair in Tokyo? Don’t forget to tell me! ? Inger sends her best regards, as do I to Takako, Yoko and yourself!

Yours,
Alf
A. Brodal

P.S. Reply of my letters to Prof. S. and Ms. Marz are enclosed.
　

80-21b

Oslo, June 13, 1980.
AB/G

Professor Dr. T. H. Schiebler
Anatomishes Institut der Universitat
Koellikerstrasse 6
87 Wurzburg
Germany / W


Dear Professor Schiebler,

Thank you for your letter of June 3rd. I can understand that you found my reactions to the copy-editor strong.

I fully realize the importance of the work of these people to achieve formally correct papers. The careful checking of references, numbers, misprints etc. is appreciated. Practically all the purely linguistic changes made have I accepted. I also realize that the copy editor may feel inclined to suggest other changes, although his (or her) competence in scientific matters is usually diminutive. What brought me to react so strongly to the treatment of our manuscript was that fact that the copy-editor, particularly with regard to footnotes and sections in small print, did not make suggestions but actually had undertaken such changes. For example, he (or she) had cut out several footnotes and inserted them and pasted them in the text. In some such cases I have indicated (in order to ease the further work) that I could accept this, provided a footnote consisting of one sentence could be put in parenthesis. In almost all instances that inclusion of the footnotes in the text made the reading heavy and confusing. I sincerely hope that the copy-editor has taken a photocopy of the original manuscript so that he can find out how to change it back where this is necessary. I can say that as far as I in any way found it possible to accept the changes made, I have let them stand (although they meant a lack of precision and of clear consecutive thinking, defects which the reader will blame on the authors). I received the letter of Ms. Marz concerning this matter today.

You may rest assured that this unfortunate affair will not in any way influence our pleasant cooperation. I thought it appropriate, however, to inform you, and my hope is that the deplorable affair will induce the zealous copy-editor to exert more tact and caution in the future handling of manuscript (the sense of which may be incomprehensible to him or her).


With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

A. Brodal, M.D.
Professor emeritus

Copy to:
Professor Koki Kawamura

Enclosed copy of my letter of today to Ms. Ingrid Marz.
　

80-21c

AB/G
June 13th 1980

Ms. Ingrid Marz
Springer-Verlag GmbH & Co. KG
Postfach 105280
Neuenheimer Landstrasse 28-30
6900 Heidelberg 1
Germany / W


Dear Ms. Ingrid Marz

Thank you for your letter of June 11th.

I am glad to hear that misunderstandings by the copy-editor are the reasons for our deplorable controversy concerning the copyediting of our review on the olivocerebellar projection. I am always willing to consider whether a copy-editor’s suggestions mean improvements or not, but as you realize in this case the copy-editor had made changes and not put forward suggestions. I agree with you that the easiest way, and that causing least work, would be to reposition the footnotes etc. according to the original manuscript. I hope the copy-editor has a copy of this, otherwise he must get one from me, because to restore the manuscript with all the changes, cuttings and pastings done, will probably be rather difficult or impossible for him.　

As to the new style of references I do not feel very strongly about this, and will of course, not insist that the journal does not follow the current procedure (even if I myself am not very enthusiastic about it).

I am looking forward to see the proofs and expect this to be a pleasure. I have always been impressed by the high quality of work (text and illustrations) of the Springer-Verlag when I have published chapters in books or papers in their journals.

With kind regards,

yours sincerely,
Copy to: 　A. Brodal, M.D.
Prof. Schiebler 　Professor emeritus
Prof. Kawamura
　

80-22

Professor Alf Brodal
Anatomical Institute
University of Oslo
Karl Johans gate 47
Oslo 1, Norway
２６June 1980


Dear Alf,

Thank you very much for your kind letter of June 17th and copies of correspondence with Professor Schiebler and Ms. Marz. I am glad to learn that almost all parts of our original manuscripts, including footnotes and petit-printing, will be restored and kept as written in the submitted manuscript; one set of the copies I also have here. I am happy and gladly agree the way of correcting proofs you suggested that I send you my corrected copy of proofs and that the printer receives only one corrected proofs from you. I hope there will be no serious delay in the mailing process between Europe and Japan.
I have received a letter of invitation from Dr. Lee of Max-Planck-Institute to participate in a Satellite Symposium (Visual Mechanisms in Primates and Lower Mammals) of the 28th International Congress of Physiological Sciences, held at Braunlage, close to Gottingen in July 21-23. Although I have once accepted and sent him a brief summary of my presentation ? Visual pathways of the tecto-ponto-(and olivo-) cerebellotectal loop ?, I am at present not enthusiastic to be there, since no travel-grant has been available (this is the main reason). When I have finally decided, I will inform you. In this connection I would like to know if it would be possible for me to see you in Oslo after the symposium, around July 24-25. I guessed from your letter that you may be in Venezia or in Pisa in the end of July?
Concerning the chair in Tokyo, it has been unfortunate for me. I am told that “prominent” neuroscientists (I can only guess their names) supported me in the professor-meeting even just before the voting. But the result has turned out that Dr. Kanemitsu, professor of Nagasaki University, who is a graduate of the Tokyo Univ., supported by emeritus Prof. Teizo Ogawa, has been appointed to be the chair.
Needless to say, I am always grateful for your thoughtful advice and support in my scientific career. I sincerely ask you to consider me in the future, too. I am sorry that there was some delay of informing you of this news. Actually I have been depressed for a while.
Now I am recovered from my under-conditions. Takako, Yoko are fine. We talked last evening about the midsummer night in Norway, thinking of you and Inger. We also hope that you will enjoy your trip to south-Europe.
I am very much looking forward to reading your new text-book and also to our review articles.
With our very best wishes, hoping to see you again.

Yours,

(Koki Kawamura).
　

80-23

AB/G July 3, 1980


Professor Koki Kawamura
Department of Anatomy
School of Medicine
Iwate Medical University
Morioka 020
Japan


Dear Koki,

Thank you for your last letter. I am indeed sorry to learn that you did not get the chair in Tokyo. However, after all it certainly must have its advantages to remain in Morioka, in a smaller milieu, with good collaborators, less stress and far more pleasant living conditions. I suppose Takako is not all too unhappy about this.

It would indeed be nice if you have the opportunity to visit Oslo in the end of July. We will be back from Pisa on July the 13th, and will then stay at home until probably July 30th, when we plan to go up to Tuddal. In case it could be arranged, it would be nice that you come with us for some days.

I am indeed satisfied that the problem with the “Ergebnisse” has ended well.

With all good wishes from Inger and myself for you, Takao, Yoko,

yours,
Alf
(A. Brodal)
　

80-24

KK/yk

Professor Alf Brodal
Prestasen 14
1310 Blommenholm
Baerum, Norway
15 July 1980


Dear Alf,

Thank you very much for your kind letter of July 3. Although I could not get the new chair, I have not been too disappointed and continuing my work as usual. Recently, we decided to move to our new flat this August or September. The flat is in the center of Morioka with a green garden, and we hope we can live happier than before.
For this reason, I had to cancel my planed visit to Europe (Symposium in Germany). I wanted to be in the meeting, and to extend my journey to Oslo to visit you and Inger. I thank you most appreciatively for your invitation to your home and cottage!! It is a great disappointment to me not to be able to see you again this summer.
Please convey my best wishes and deep gratitude to Inger. Takako, Yoko and I hope cordially that you are always healthy and that you will enjoy your splendid summer holidays.
With kind regards,

Yours,

(Koki Kawamura)
　

80-25

KK/yk

Professor Alf Brodal
Anatomical Institute
University of Oslo
Karl Johans gate 47
Oslo 1, Norway
28 August 1980

Dear Alf,

I hope that you have enjoyed your holidays in Tuddal with Inger. We also spent some days at the sea-side, but unfortunately we had little sun this summer. The semester will start soon and we will be moving to a new flat next Saturday.
During this season, I spent most of the time on the pontocerebellar projection with Hashikawa and we have written a manuscript almost ready to submit, I think, to the Neuroscience or the Journal of comparative Neurology. I would be most grateful if you (or/and Per) could kindly spend your precious time upon this article and give me your comments with corrections. I sent you a copy of the manuscript, yesterday.
Some days ago, I received from Munchen a copy of the letter (dated 5. 8. 1980) from J. F. Bergmann Verlag/Barbel Muller to you and learned that the galley-proof will be coming to us soon. I will read and check it as quickly and cautiously as possible and then send it to you asking for your final check.
With kind regards and warm greetings, also to Inger, Per and Fred from Takako and Yoko.

And yours

(Koki Kawamura)

I wrote a letter back to the Bergmann Verlag, asking them and making sure to let me also have a set of proof ? to send it directly to me.
　

80-26

AB/G August 25th 1980

Professor Koki Kawamura
Department of Anatomy
School of Medicine
Iwate Medical University
Morioka 020
Japan


Dear Koki,

I have just received and gone through the prints of illustrations for our review. They are all good, except two, which may be improved somewhat.

I enclose copy of a letter which I received and found when I returned from our summer vacation. It contains some information of interest. I hope they remember to send you a copy of the proofs, and that there will be time for you to go through them and send them to me before I have to return the proofs. I also sincerely hope that the copy-editor has managed to put the footnotes etc. back in order!

Please let me know again how many copies of reprints you want me to order on your account.

When we get the page proofs we will have to make the final preparation of the index.

I may tell you that just before we went on our summer vacation, I managed to do the last proof-reading for “Neurological Anatomy”. It is a good thing to be finished with this!

We had three good weeks up at Tuddal and are now back again in the usual routine. I hope you, Takako and Yoko have had a nice summer holiday as well and are happy with your new living place. Inger joins me in sending you all three our best regards.

Yours,
Alf
(A. Brodal)
　

80-27

KK/yk

Professor emeritus Alf Brodal
Anatomical Institute
University of Oslo
Karl Johans gate 47
Oslo 1, Norway
2 September 1980

Dear Alf,

Thank you for your letter of August 25th. I am happy to learn that you enjoyed your holiday with Inger, and that your text-book of new edition will soon appear and also our review-article after proof-reading with preparation of the index. I hope the publisher will send me directly a set of galley-proof, too.
As concerns the number of copies of reprints, I ask you to order for me 50 (fifty) ? bill addressed to the University ? as I wrote you in my letter of 14 March 1980.
Today, I also wrote a letter to Per concerning our pontocerebellar manuscript that I had sent you before (asking him to read through it).
With my best, best wishes,

Yours,

(Koki Kawamura)
　

80-28

17 September 1980

Dear Alf,

A galley proof of the olivocerebellar review article containing from page 1 to 111 has just arrived from Bergmann Verlag. The remaining last part (from page 112) will soon arrive, I do hope.
As soon as I finish careful reading with corrections, I will send you the proof by express mail.

With all my best wishes,

Yours,
Koki
　

80-29

KK/yk

Professor Alf Brodal
Anatomical Institute
University of Oslo
Karl Johans gate 47
Oslo 1, Norway
30 September 1980

Dear Alf,

It is now early in the morning in my office and I have just finished the final check of the whole part of the galley-proof. The mails from the publisher have reached me parts by parts, on 16th, 17th, 22nd and 29th of September in succession. I have corrected the proof and dispatched it to you by express-mail on 26th (p. 1-79), 27th (p. 80-99), 29th (p.100-137) and 30th (today, p. �W-�Z and 19 sheets which contained new corrections marked with red pencil).
Actually, I did not think of taking so many days for the correction, although I have been rather busy in these days with lectures and meetings and also with a guest (neurophysiologist) who visited our department.
Although you advised me in the telephone that it is not necessary to take too much care for the linguistic changes, I had to be engaged as you will see in this affairs rather deeply and, I would say, “honestly”. May be I was stupid, since there were lots of linguistic changes: I could imagine that some parts had been changed by a copy-editor while other parts had been re-written and improved by you in the final manuscript which I do not have. Since I could not (or had not means to) distinguish the two, I thought it would be of some help for your final correction of the galley proof, if I check almost all part of the sentences which are different from those written in my manuscript (, I received this copy from you this March). From this reason it is obvious (and also I know) that a large part of the linguistic check I made does not mean to be corrected, simply for the purpose of mentioning the changes.
I suppose that the copy-editor changed the words, e.g., anatomical, physiological, somatotopical etc to anatomic, physiologic, somatotopic etc. I cannot see why he has done the changes! Commas before “and” have also been put in every parts, but this may be all right. Besides these, there are many parts in the proof where unnecessary changes had been made.
I am very sorry that I could not mark the words for the indexing with colour in the text. But, I will try to make an index today and send it to you. Finally I sincerely apologize the delay which, however, was not due to my idleness. I do hope you will understand me.
With best wishes,
Yours,

(Koki Kawamura)

P.S. Thank you very much for the correction and useful comments on the pontine paper with Hashikawa and for your kind letter, which reached me must now.
　
Yours,
Koki
　

80-30

AB/G September 22nd, 1980

Professor Koki Kawamura
Department of Anatomy
School of Medicine
Iwate Medical University
Morioka 020
Japan


Dear Koki,

I have read your paper with Hashikawa on the ponto-cerebellar projection with great interest. It is clear that in the main the findings are in agreement with those made in HRP-studies. It is obviously a thorough study which has demanded much work.

I have made some, largely minor, corrections of the English, particularly where I found that the expression was not clear. In some places I have entered question marks in the margin.

More specifically I will mention some points where I think you might make some changes, I miss a short comment on the injection sites as to the question of “active” areas of uptake etc. It should be discussed whether the labeled terminations in the cortex can be believed to come also from the periphery of the labeled injection area or not. It appears from your figure 3 that you have considered also the periphery of an injection site as giving rise to labeled fibers. (On p.20 you say that the labeled areas cover almost the entire pons.) If this is so (probably impossible to know!), it weakens the conclusions about the source of afferents labeled in the particular cases, and it would be wise to insert some reservations on this point. ? Likewise, this might deserve mention when you consider the relations between HRP and autoradiographic findings.

Some specific references to other species (in addition to rabbit and rat) might be of interest concerning species differences.

You will find some comments on the Discussion, where there are some repetitions, and the section on longitudinal zones is a little unclear. The Discussion may possibly be condensed.

I think it would make it easier for the reader to find the correct reference to Brodal if you insert A. and P. where the reference (in the text) starts with Brodal.

P.t.l. is written with a capital P. in a figure, but as p.t.l. elsewhere. This should be made consistently.

As you will see, I have not gone into details, but only emphasized some points. Per has read the manuscript and agrees with my comments.

I hope these comments may be of some use for you and Hashikawa in your further work to make this a first rate paper. Presumably it will be best suited for J.C.N.

With kind regards, also from Per,

Yours,
Alf
(A. Brodal)

P.S. You should not mention me in Acknowledgements. My work in this matter is not worth mentioning. A.B.

The manuscript is returned separately.
　

80-31

KK/yk

Professor emeritus Alf Brodal
Anatomical Institute
University of Oslo
Karl Johans gate 47
Oslo 1, Norway
2 October 1980

Dear Alf,

Thank you very much for your kind letter of September 22nd and the corrected manuscript containing useful comments and suggestions. We agree that the paper should include the discussion concerning the “active” areas of uptake etc and some specific references to other species than cats on the pontocerebellar projection.
Actually, at first, we planned to write on these affairs but in the final form the comments were not appeared, considering the length of the manuscript. We are encouraged to do a further effort to make the article better so as to be good enough to the J.C.N..

Concerning the correction of our review article, I found new, two parts that should be corrected in the proof. They are:
Page 11, bottom line of legend to Fig. 5:
arrows (should not be italics)
Page 108, 15 line:
Groenewegen et al. (1979), but not
Groenewegen and Voogd (1979)

I will be busy this year, since I have accepted to do two lectures: one in Tokyo (Japan Medical Symposium in October: on the “association” area) and the other at Sendai (Japan Neuroophthalmology Congress in December: on the visual system). Further, I decided to participate in the Neuroscience Meeting at Cincinnati (U.S.A.) which will be held 9-14 of November.
I do hope all the envelopes which contained the galley-proof (please cf. my letter of 30 September 1980) have reached you safe and sound.
With my, also from Takako’s , best wishes to Inger, Per and to yourself.

Yours,

(Koki Kawamura)
　

80-32

AB/G September 26th 1980

Ms. Judith Claremont-Fertl
J.F. Bergmann Verlag GmbH & Co. KG
Agnes-Bernauer-Platz 8
Postfach 21 04 45
8000 Munchen 21
Germany /W


Advances in Anatomy 64

Dear Ms. Claremont-Fertl,

Under separate cover I dispatch today as registered mail the Subject Index for Kawamura’s and my review. As you will see, we have entered those page numbers that we find relevant.

I know that often an index is prepared by having somebody go through the manuscript and listing all page numbers on which a particular catch-word appears. (I gather that the hypertrophic list of Brown Gould, Advances no. 62, has been prepared in this way.) One may then for each subject end up with numerous page numbers of which only some are actually important. The present manuscript is particularly unsuitable for such a process of indexing. Words as for example, ventral lamella, nucleus s, longitudinal subdivision, HRP-method and many, many others are mentioned repeatedly or in passing, without however, meriting mention in an index. To put them all there would chiefly serve to annoy the reader, who is looking for information on a problem. We assume that those who will read our review, are sufficiently oriented about the matter to find the places to look for from the index as it is prepared by us and from consulting the list of Contents. It would not be difficult to collect say 35 page references to for example each of the cerebellar zones A, B, C, D (listed under: Cerebellum, zonal longitudinal subdivision, olivary projections to,). We have given 5 or 6 indications for each zone. These will enable the reader to find the places of importance.

I was rather shocked to see the index of Brown Gould’s paper. Although one may find in this reference to most pages where a subject is discussed (provided it is properly understood by the index-maker!), it was extremely annoying and time consuming to find the place where the essentials of a matter are discussed.

I must implore you: please do not put anybody on the job to complete the index for our review. This will serve no practical purpose, but only cost trouble and increased production expenses. I would be grateful to hear from you that you can trust Professor Kawamura and me in this business of index-making. We will have the responsibility and be blamed if readers are not satisfied.


Yours sincerely,

A. Brodal, M.D.
Professor emeritus


Copy to:
Professor Koki Kawamura
　

80-33

AB/G September 30th 1980

Ms. Judith Claremont-Fertl
J.F. Bergmann Verlag GmbH & Co. KG
Agnes-Bernauer-Platz 8
Postfach 21 04 45
8000 Munchen 21
Germany /W

Advances in Anatomy 64
Dear Ms. Claremont-Fertl,

Under separate cover and as registered mail I am today sending the first 2/3 of the page proofs of Kawamura’s and my review. On the whole there are few misprints. (A relatively large proportion occurs in the figure legends.) In a few places half a line or so has fallen out in the printing.

As you may know from my previous correspondence on the mater with Ms. Ingrid Marz (see letter of 19/5-80), the copy-editor had made changes not only in the English but also attempted to incorporate foot-notes and sections with small print into the text. This was very often illogical and made reading difficult. It was agreed that concerning this point the manuscript should be restored to the original status. Unfortunately, some errors have arisen during this process.

Thus, in a few places the altered numbers of foot-notes (referred to in the text) have not been changed back to the original. In some figure legends reference to the journal with numbers of vol., page etc. have not been deleted, for example Fig. 29.

More disturbing is another circumstance. In some places the copy-editor had suggested changes in the wording which according to my knowledge of the matter did not give a correct expression of the facts and meaning. I therefore marked these unacceptable changes with stet……. In the corrected manuscript used by the printer it has often happened that the suggested new word has correctly been erased, whereas my “stet” mark (red stipled line) has been retained. Unfortunately, the printer has taken these lines to indicate italics, and thus some instances of very strange and inadvertent italization occur in the page proofs, see for example, p.76. Other examples on pp.49, 57, 73, 74, 77, 78, 86. I suppose that the expenses incurring on account of such errors are not charged on the authors, who cannot be held responsible for them.

In the reference list there are four papers (Brodal, Courville and Faraco-Cantin, Saint-Cyr and Courville, Voogd and Bigare) published in a symposium report in 1980. I did not have the page numbers of these papers when I sent the reference list. The book has just appeared, and I have indicated the page numbers in the proofs. If it is desirable for the sake of consequent pattern, they may be added.

I have asked Professor Kawamura to send his proofs to me instead of to the editors, because I am sure it will be easier for me to incorporate errors he might have spotted, but which I may have missed, than that the editorial office will have to labour with this.

I hope the printer will understand my corrections.

The index was sent a few days ago.

Yours sincerely,

A. Brodal, M.D.
Professor emeritus

P.S. The proofs of the first pages (contents etc.) arrived today and are returned with
page numbers entered. The rest of the proof will follow in a few days.

Copy to:
Professor Koki Kawamura
　

80-34

AB/G October 2nd, 1980

Professor Koki Kawamura
Department of Anatomy
School of Medicine
Iwate Medical University
Morioka 020
Japan


Dear Koki,

Enclosed follow copies of my correspondence with Springer concerning proofs. I enclose also copy of the index as it was sent.

I received today the first part of your corrected proofs. I have gone through them and compared our corrections. There are, as I mentioned on the telephone, many linguistic changes (all very small and of little importance) from the original, made by the copy-editor. Unless these changes are misleading or confusing, I have not corrected them, in order to have as few corrections as possible. Any correction of an error is likely to result in another error!

The publishers obviously have their particular way of arranging matters. Some of these principles appear rather strange, for example to use italics for “dots”, “squares” etc. when mentioned in the text. Likewise some of the patterns of the figure legends appear strange. However, for the same reasons as mentioned above, I have not made changes in the legends, except where there is lack of consistency.

I hope to receive the rest of your proofs in a few days. Then we should be finished with our long work with the review, and should have met to drink a toast to the completion of this work.
Best wishes to you all,

Yours,
Alf
(A. Brodal)

P.S. The last sections arrived today. I will go through them immediately.
　

80-35

AB/G October 6th, 1980

Professor Koki Kawamura
Department of Anatomy
School of Medicine
Iwate Medical University
Morioka 020
Japan


Dear Koki,

I received your last bunch of page proof pages today. Apart from a very few new corrections (marked in red in your sheets) I had spotted the others and entered the changes when I sent the final part of the proofs to the editor some days ago, For example, according to previous corrections I had changed Lafleur to LaFleur, and this could not any more be repaired. But after all such points are of little relevance. I looked up Groenewegen and Voogd (1977) on p.86 (vestibular fibres to olive) and found that it was correct, while nothing of this kind is mentioned in Bigare and Voogd (1977).

I had entered pages for the index as you will see from my copy which I have sent you. I think we have entered the same pages.

As I have mentioned before, I have not corrected all the rather unfamiliar changes of minor things which the editors have made.

Again, I am happy that we now are really at the end of our rather large project. Let us hope that it will be useful for colleagues working in the field. And thanks once more for a valuable and pleasant cooperation.


Yours as ever,
Alf
(A. Brodal)

P.S. I received your express letter of Oct. 2 just now.
　

80-36

KK/yk

Professor Alf Brodal
Anatomical Institute
University of Oslo
Karl Johans gate 47
Oslo 1, Norway
15 October 1980

Dear Alf,

Thank you very much for your letters of 2nd and 6th of October together with copies of your letters to Ms. Judith Claremont-Fertl (Bergmann Verlag) dated 26th and 30th of September and a copy of the Subject Index you sent to publisher.
Of course, I am in complete agreement with what you mentioned in you letters to Ms, Claremont-Fertl and to me in the ways of correcting the proof and of the presentation of the Index. I noticed, however, in the Index a word to be corrected in the galley-proof which I received from the publisher yesterday. That is change, if possible, from “Olivary afferents from” to “Olivary projections from” or “Olivary projections (afferents) from” in two parts:
page 139, line 23 of left column
page 139, top line of right column
, since in all other parts which refer to this item is written as “see Olivary projections from”.
and insert comma between Cerebellum and projection on page 138, line 14 of
right column.

I am very grateful to you for that you have kindly considered me as your collaborator in this hard (for me actually it was, I have been running after you) but indeed very happy, pleasant and instructive work! Please understand me when I say that I cannot find the words to express fully my sincere gratitude to you with deep respects for these precious years since 1971.
Particularly am I, and also Takako and Yoko, grateful to Inger who encouraged me and gave us wonderful Norwegian spirits and nourishment and to Fred, Miss Gorset and all the other members of the institute who have kindly accepted me, just as described in the acknowledgments.
Thank you and best wishes to you all.
Yours cordially,

(Koki Kawamura)
　

80-37

AB/G October 20th 1980

Professor Koki Kawamura
Department of Anatomy
School of Medicine
Iwate Medical University
Morioka 020
Japan


Dear Koki,

Thank you for your letter of Oct. 15th.

Since I have already returned the proofs of the Index, it is difficult to have changes made now. However, I have noticed the lacking comma you refer to on p.138 and inserted it, likewise there was another minor error which I have corrected. (I do not now remember which, and I do not have the copy here.) Otherwise I have followed the principle to avoid changes as far as possible, and I do not remember having found it essential to make changes concerning the other points you mention. Therefore, some of the suggestions for corrections I got from you after I had sent my copy, are not made.

For your information I enclose a letter of Oct. 6th from Springer-Verlag. The lady seems a little hurt by my remarks!

So now we have only to wait to see the final product!

With kind regards to you all three,

From
yours,
Alf
(A. Brodal)
Inger sends her best wishes.
　

80-38

25 October 1980

Dear Alf,

Thank you for your letter of October 20th, and a copy of a letter from the publisher. Yes, only to wait, as you say, and look forward to the final product to be fine.
Tomorrow morning, I will go to Tokyo, giving a lecture on connections of the “association” area and stay there 3 days. We have almost finished revising the pontocerebellar paper and expect to submit to J.c.N. soon.

Hoping to see you and Inger again.
We send our warmest greetings.

Yours,
　Koki

80-39

KK/yk

Ms. Judith Claremont-Fertl
J.F. Bergmann Verlag GmbH & Co. KG
Agnes-Bernauer-Platz 8
Postfach 210445
8000 Munchen 21
West Germany
29 October 1980

Dear Ms. Claremont-Fertl

Thank you for your letter of October 21st and for having sent me one set of the proof of “Olivocerebellar Projection: A Review”. Although I have not returned to you the corrected proof directly, as it has been planned and agreed, Professor A. Brodal checked my correction (I had sent him the corrected proof) and he has sent a single set of the galley-proof to you. Needless to say, we are in complete agreement in the correction and etc.; we have made close contact and communication by mail and telephone (please cf. e.g., his letter of September 30th addressed to you).
In responding to you letter, I am returning herewith a proof of the cover of our article, where I found one misprinting on the last page.
2nd line
antere → antero
In addition, I would ask you, if possible to correct, the following.
page �Y 139 → 138 ?
page �[　Japanese Society for the Promotion of Sciences → Japan Society for the Promotion of Science

Thank you for your kind help.

Yours sincerely,

Koki Kawamura, M.D.
Professor of Anatomy

Encl. corrected proof-sheets
(Copy to A. Brodal)
　

80-40

AB/G December 2, 1980

Professor Koki Kawamura, M.D.
Department of Anatomy
School of Medicine
Iwate Medical University
Morioka 020
Japan


Dear Koki,

Finally our joint review is out. According to the rules at present we do not get reprints to reduced price any more, but the authors get 25 copies free. They arrived here yesterday. The editors have apparently addressed them all to me. After having kept 2 for myself and 2 for the library I have dispatched on behalf of both of us a copy to each of the following:

Fred
Eric
Per
Espen Dietrichs
Jan Voogd
Jacques Courville
David Armstrong
Olov Oscarsson
Murray Haines

This makes altogether 13 copies, of which at least 7 are sent to people with particular interest in the olive. I am now sending you 4 copies, leaving 4 here for further distribution for others, i.e. people who have particular interest in the olive. If you know of some, please let me know. I suppose our department will order some more, and if you want to do the same, you should write to Springer directly.

I see now to my surprise that I have got only 21 copies. Maybe they have sent 4 to you directly? I hope you can accept the distribution I have made.

The review looks very nice, and I think we may congratulate ourselves on the review, which hopefully will turn out to be of use for workers in the field.

I hope all is well with you, Takako and Yoko, and send my best wishes to all of you.
With kind regards,

yours,
A. Brodal

P.S. I enclose a reprint of my article in Courville’s book. It arrived today.
　

80-41

KK/yk

Professor emeritus Alf Brodal
Anatomical Institute
University of Oslo
Karl Johans gate 47
Oslo 1, Norway
10 December 1980

Dear Alf,

Thank you for your letter of December 3rd. I am glad to learn that our review has come out. Nine scientists you listed are just the suitable people to be distributed on behalf of both of us, I agree and say thank you for the dispatch.
I have not yet got any information from the publisher concerning the copies. Since I want to see the book as early as possible, I would be very happy if you could kindly send me one copy of the book with your memorable words and signature by air mail as a sort of X-mas gift. I wish I can do the same to you after I receive some copies from the publisher. Since the book appears to be expensive, I am thinking of the number of the copies I should write to the publisher. At present, I think I need one to the University library, one for the department library and further one to the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and also for my colleague Hashikawa and for myself.
May-be I will order about 20, which I will do in a week from here directly to Springer as you suggest. I think it is better now to wait some days for a mail from the publisher.
As soon as I get copies or a letter concerning the review, I will inform you.
With my best withes and warmest greetings of Merry Christmas to Inger, you and all of your children and grandchildren from Takako, Yoko and me.


Yours as ever,

(Koki Kawamura)
　

80-42

KK/yk

Professor emeritus Alf Brodal
Anatomical Institute
University of Oslo
Karl Johans gate 47
Oslo 1, Norway
17 December 1980

Dear Alf,

I am very much delighted with four copies of your review articles and also of your paper in the Inferior Olivary Nucleus. Thank you very much! I am very happy that you have kindly given me the privilege to share a toast-drink to the birth of this book. No news received I from the publisher. I will now contact them concerning the order of the reprints.
At Cincinnati, last month, I have seen your new text-book and immediately ordered the one. From my heart, I together with Takako congratulate you and Inger on this very valuable masterpiece. Everybody at the meeting indeed admired, I know.
With our best wishes,

Yours,

(Koki Kawamura)
　

80-43

Dear Inger and Alf,
27 Dec. ’80

Thank you for a copy of the review article with your signature. I have been lazy that I have not yet ordered the copies to Springer.

I am waiting for a letter from J.c.N. editor (Palay, Boston) containing the decision of our ponto-cerebellar paper that we submitted last November.

Again I wish you A Happy New Year.
Kindest regards and warm greetings

From Takako, Koki and Yoko
　

80-44

December 10, 1980

Dear Takako, Koki and Yoko,

We are sending you our best wishes for the new year! We hope that in spite of rather gloomy auspices for the world, things may turn out better than they promise.
Here we are now having snow, and a rather cold period so setting for Christmas is good. Kari and Per with their children and Anne Brit will spend X-mas Ever with us, while Nenne and Bodvar and their three children will celebrate X-mas in their own house.
I personally must confess that I feel rather relieved since now the review on the olivocerebellar projection (which looks very nice, don’t you think so, Takako?) and the book are both out, although I have not yet seen a copy of the book. It will probably be possible now to relax a little (this is said to health promoting) and embark on some minor pieces of original research. There are some advantages with getting older! Inger passed the 70ie’s in November, so now we are both retired and pensionists.
With our warmest regards to all three of you.

Yours
Inger and Alf