James Stone was talking about what you don't get off a pedigree chart. We have had an interesting situation in our family which makes me wonder what future generations would think in reading the raw statistics. (I'll use aliases since the persons involved are still living.) My son, John, married a girl, Jane, who had been married before but had no children. It was John's first marriage. John and Jane had two children, Mary and Sue. John and Jane divorced. Jane remarried her first husband, Ralph, (who had been orally and physically abusive) thinking he had changed. He hadn't. After five months, she sued for divorce. In the mean time, she was pregnant with Ralph's baby. Amy was going to college and trying to raise her first two children, so when her sister (who had never had children of her own after years and years of marriage) wanted to adopt the baby, Amy said yes. Ralph didn't want to be responsible for the baby, so he signed papers letting the sister adopt. When the baby was born, Amy put my son's last name on the birth certificate even though it wasn't his baby. Shortly thereafter, the sister and her husband adopted the baby and changed it's last name to their last name. Now. . . . if you were a genealogist researching this family, would you think the second husband (my son) had gotten his former wife, Amy, pregnant and that caused the divorce of Ralph and Amy (since it is his last name on the birth certificate)? Also, the baby is half-brother to the sisters, Mary and Sue, but if someone didn't dig deeply, they might never know that the baby was also their "cousin." What a can of worms! And the icing on the cake is, Amy is Mormon. I hope her family makes plenty of notes to help future generations and Byrd genealogists know the situations and the kinships. I know I am. Pat