On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 19:34:14 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John) via" <[email protected]> wrote: >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 the law about adoption in Norway is from start of 1900. But the the way of foster and step-children can go back several 100 years and when entering person to database we also include that situations and with unlimit descentand, the result can be very unclear :) I have helped some from USA and Canada to find their anscestors in Norway. And as many people did leave for America in 17-1900 there are many relatives that do not know the fact :) of relationship. -- Otto Jørgensen http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/ All email is checked by NIS2014