I am concerned that we are possibly accepting information about someone else's ancestors as our own. The rule in genealogy is to document our data. The fact that we MUST go backward, generation by generation, providing proof of our findings, seems to have been neglected in some instances. Where is the proof for Ann Skuce's father being Sven Skute? I am fully aware that we must be prepared to accept all spellings of a surname, and will be willing to listen to the Skute argument if it has been proven, but until that time, let's be very careful. Additionally, is there proof that the father of John Adamson, who married Ann Skuce, was Basil? To my knowledge, that hasn't been proven. You researchers know that there are hundreds of John Adamson's! We don't even know where our John came from for sure. It has been assumed that he came from London, but no proof! I've studied the records in England and haven't been able to identify our John. We don't know when he was born - or does someone out there actually have documentation about that? I am not saying you are wrong, it's just that I haven't seen anything YET to document these as FACTS. The Basil theory has been around for over 30 years, yet still not proven. It is so very easy to accept something as fact, thinking "Finally! We have it!" I am familiar with the Skute data also, and I can't accept that as Skuce data yet. Where is the connection between the Newton/Haddonfield monthly meeting minutes and the Skute data? There were Skuce's in Cornwall very early! Brought there long ago to construct the canals. I have studied the Skuce book and there were so many Ann's that could have been ours that I was stunned! But we don't even know our Ann's age, do we?. If I had 'worked the data', I could have taken one of them for ours and some of you 'newbies' might have been thrilled to have it. The rest of you who have been researching for years would have never trusted my research results again. And rightly so! So please, let's be careful what data we accept as fact. It isn't genealogy if we carelessly latch onto someone's undocumented data and claim a person as 'our' ancestor. And remember too, that no one knows for sure when John and Ann's son, Thomas died. He wrote his will on 2 Feb 1790, and most certainly died within the next two weeks. His wife Mary died during March 1790. Of those things we have proof from the Estate Settlement Papers, which include the 'loose papers' proving the death of both Thomas and Mary within a month of each other. By the way - Our Quaker records don't actually name a month. Their dating system is very different, and it confuses many people. Prior to 1752 in America the first month was not January, and the second month was not February. Therefore the third month wasn't March. Were you all aware of that? So the Quaker dates should never be translated, but left as they are in the records. I encourage all of you to continue your search, as the fun is in the search! If someone handed us the printed genealogy of our Adamson ancestry, it wouldn't mean nearly as much, would it? I enjoy all the correspondence on the Adamson List, and thank Jerry for his contribution and continued backing of it. Thanks for your kindness in hearing me out. Evelyn