Dear Leo, My message was twofold. 1). It is better that people not put undocumented family relationships into public presentations of genealogy as if they were fact. 2). Research will be more productive if people study what has been done before embarking on what they think is new. Here is an example of the first point. The LDS Family Ancestry files can be used to show that many descendants of Roger1 Barton are descended from an English knight who probably came from Normandy with William the Conqueror in 1066 (shortly thereafter, of course, King William I). Through the knight, we are related to such people as Princess Diane. That entire line depends on one connection that is without any documentation, that of the wife of Robert Ashley, Mary, who was the widow of one of several Thomas Hortons. Yet that connection is there on the computer for any of us to discover. How did it get there? Either someone entered it as data because they were content to believe it was so, or the computer software linked two unrelated files through a common name. Organizations such as the DAR, SAR, Mayflower Society, etc. have rules governing the acceptable sources of data for pedigrees submitted for membership. In my view, the rules are reasonable and realistic. It would be well to get the rules and follow them, not necessarily because one wants to become a member, but because they provide good guidelines for what we do in our family research. Regarding research: In 1900, William Eleazar Barton wrote of his ancestor, Lieutenant William Barton of Morris County, New Jersey. This researcher and author wrote of the 12th century manor in Lancashire and of Gilbert de Nottum, founder of the Lancashire family of Bartons. Among other things, the author had studied the parish registers of Lancashire and found the Barton name was long gone from the area. He concluded that the early family of the name Barton had assumed other names. He found that at least 28 families of the name Barton have registered coats of arms. (ONE of the 28 is sold commercially as THE Barton coat of arms). He cited several pedigrees of Bartons listed in a British genealogists guide of 1879, and cited others he had found. He provided notes on American Barton families, the "Massachusetts Bartons," the "Maine Bartons," the "New Hampshire Bartons," the "Rhode Island Bartons," the "New York Bartons," etc. How much time, money and energy might one expend in research only to find that one had merely duplicated what William Eleazar Barton had done and written one hundred years ago. With all of our modern computers and e-mail systems, who has dug out the many Barton pedigrees referenced by W. E. Barton in 1900 from an 1879 publication? I mention all of this in connection with the discussion of the ancestry and possible brothers of Roger1 Barton of Westchester County, NY. In 1937, Adolph Law Voge wrote his brief 12 page address to the organizational meeting of "Roger Barton's Kinsmen." Voge mentions again researching some of the same kinds of material from England. Voge was most interested in the parish register of Walton which includes the entry "Roger, Alice and Elizabeth, children of Thomas Barton, bapt. (respectively) 25, 18, and 15 Feb 1602/3." Voge wrote, "Strangely enough the Walton volume has all of the Barton entries checked in pencil by some earlier New York searcher. No other volume has such checks against Barton names." Perhaps William Eleazar Barton checked the entries in pencil. Who will volunteer to repeat this exercise yet again? If one does not know what has been done already, does not know all of the material already in print, how can one do research? How can one know when he or she has found something new? How much time might one spend to discover the existence of a Barton pedigree that was already listed in an 1879 guide to pedigrees and referenced by W.E. Barton in 1900? Perhaps the one piece of Barton literature that is most needed today is a listing of all the Barton genealogy already available and where to obtain it. The three I mentioned, McCracken, Voge and Joshua Lindley Barton are only a start. A very good start, but only a start. Based on my decades as a professional researcher, and on my one year stint as a genealogist of one branch of the Roger Barton family, I don't agree that new researchers bring out new questions. They seldom do, if ever. For some period of time, they ask questions that have been asked and answered years earlier. Based on the same experience, I don't agree that the more people that are interested in solving a puzzle the more likely we are going to find some answers. My experience as a professional researcher was that two or three people could accomplish what teams had failed to do again and again over the years. There is a reason for that, but that is another subject. Jim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Leo K. Barton wrote: Dear Jim I hope my inquiries have not offended anyone. Like I mentioned I am relatively new to researching Genealogy. I for one have not read the published works of George McCracken, Adolph Law Voge and Joshua Lindley Barton. Thanks to you I will now inquire about obtaining these works. I'm sure you are not suggesting that we give up searching because these writers could not find the answers we are seeking. I would think that in this day of the computer and our ability to reach people all over the world that just maybe some one has some recently discovered information they might divulge to us. I know that if their are as many good people like you and the others I have corresponded with on rootsweb it won't be long until we uncover some very pleasant news that will be of great help to most of us. Do you agree that new researchers bring out new questions and that the more people that are interested in solving a puzzle the more likely we are going to find some answers? Thanks again and I hope to hear from you soon...................Leo - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Jim Barton wrote: Dear Leo, We agree this is a good forum for the subject, and we agree that it isn't good to present undocumented info as fact in the publication or presentation of family trees. I am trying to point out that the subject of Rufus and Roger and the brother stories has been under investigation at various times for at least 70 years by some very skilled amateurs and at least one very good professional. The results have been published and are available to the public. As a researcher by education and profession (but not genealogy), I try to avoid reinventing the same wheel. That is neither satisfying nor rewarding. Therefore, I study the existing literature first. I will agree that it is exciting to jump into some of these things. But in the long run, I think everyone better serves themselves and others by finding and studying what has already been done. With regard to Roger Barton, the published works of George McCracken, Adolph Law Voge and Joshua Lindley Barton will be of great benefit and will lead you to other related published material by reference. Having digested that material, a person can sit back and ask themselves what aspect of it they want to research further, and what aspect do they have the time, money and ability to research further. I found more than enough to do just bringing my line up to date, and correcting the inevitable errors already in the literature regarding my line. Although Barton is not an unusual name, it is also not very common these days in the USA, thus we are inclined to connect the dots. However, the name Barton is quite common in England and has been for centuries. Without going back and counting again, I believe there are at least 23 towns in England named Barton. There aren't a fraction that many in the much, much larger USA. Thus it indicates there were a lot of Bartons in England, quite possibly totally unrelated. The explanations given for the name "Barton" allow for the name to arise independently in a lot of different places, thus there is no one "Barton" from whom all other Bartons are descended. By and large the Roger Barton line were schooled. One doesn't find their mark "x" on documents. To some small degree they followed traditional ways of naming children, but they were not rigorous about that. One thing I noticed in my line was that siblings would want to name their children after the same ancestor. The first sibling there got the name. The other siblings then gave the same name to their children, but as a middle name to avoid confusion. The children themselves, of course, then used the middle name and created the confusion. That's what children are for. Jim