Dear Rita,
Happy New Year!
Thank you very much for your wonderfully useful reply.  I am sorry it has
taken me so long to get back to you but I was on holiday until today.
After going through your message I have only two remaining questions:
>2050	   In(2L)C163, l(2)br48AM4=l(2)35Eb, l(2)CA7/CyO
Your listing suggests two mutant alleles, but we so far have no record of
l(2)br48AM4, l(2)35Eb or l(2)CA7.  Do you know whether these mutations
are caused by the inversion breaks, or are they just incidental lethals.  The
cytological data we have for In(2L)C163.41 suggests that 'l(2)35EbAM4'
might be caused by the proximal inversion break.  What about 'l(2)CA7'?
>  Cy329 = Cy2004.
>   See references for it in our stock 2004 (DIS 80) and
>   DIS (1987)  65:107 .
I am afraid I could not find what I needed in either of these places.  So
is this a new allele of Cy or just the allele represented on the In(2LR)Cy
chromosome?
Thank you for these last bits of information.
with best wishes,
Rachel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Drysdale.
FlyBase (Cambridge),
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Rachel,
After some delay in answering your message of 5 Jan,
I can say concerning two points put by you as follows:
2050    Here there is a typographical error. It will be
correct: In(2L)C163.41. l(2)br48AM4 = l(2)35Eb is, indeed,
caused by the proximal inversion break (see DIS-64 (1986)
50). About l(2)CA7 I can say nothing. We received this chromosome
from Dr. M.Ashburner in March, 1987 without the description of
the l(2)CA7. If you will have some information about it let me
please know.
   Cy329 and Cy2004 are the numbers of the same
In(2LR)Cy chromosome - balancer with the appropriate
markers (see our stock  2004 in DIS-80 (1997) 117).
In fact, this is a short-cut name of this balancer.
With best wishes,
Rita.