On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 21:06:43 -0500, jstockham via <[email protected]> wrote: >I have always been taught that genealogy is based on blood relations and a >friend of mine who did a lot of research quit when he learned that his >adopted daughters would not be eligible to join the DAR. Don't know if that >is still true or not, but with BK being such a formidable source it seems >anyone going the DAR route might have some trouble. Jean in OK > DAR = ????? (for the forigner and not english speaking :) > There are alway question about the genectic bloodline or the familyline. And there are areport and program are also able to make reports with Adoptd, sted etc So there will always be question om both reality -- Otto Jørgensen http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ All email is checked by NIS2014

In message <[email protected]>, Otto Jørgensen via <[email protected]> writes: >On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 21:06:43 -0500, jstockham via <[email protected]> >wrote: > >>I have always been taught that genealogy is based on blood relations and a >>friend of mine who did a lot of research quit when he learned that his >>adopted daughters would not be eligible to join the DAR. Don't know if that >>is still true or not, but with BK being such a formidable source it seems >>anyone going the DAR route might have some trouble. Jean in OK >> >DAR = ????? (for the forigner and not english speaking :) >> Another foreigner guesses: daughters of the American revolution? > >There are alway question about the genectic bloodline or the >familyline. > >And there are areport and program are also able to make reports with >Adoptd, sted etc >So there will always be question om both reality > I don't know how far back, but I think before an approximate date, adoption (especially where within family) wasn't that well recorded, so if you're trying to trace bloodline, you may well include links that aren't, without knowing. I would agree that on first thinking about it many people probably _do_ think of genealogy as bloodline-based, but I can't _really_ think of many good reasons to worry about it. There might be a _few_ medical reasons - very rare diseases that are generic for example - but I suspect the majority of those don't really need more than about four generations. There might be some relevance for genetic-background studies, but are those common here? (Finally there are racist reasons, of course.) Having said all that, I agree that the option of bloodline-only, as John implied he was considering, would be nice for those that want it. _Perhaps_ it could be combined with my suggestion/want for the ability for the option of making branches various shades of grey where the base link is based on a source whose quality is [settable - I'd say less than 2]. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf science is not intended to be foolproof. Science is about crawling toward the truth over time. - Scott Adams, 2015-2-2