Hi Gerri, The real reason the branches of L2 were separated is that there doesn't seem to have ever been any primary source documentation that prove them to all be brothers. It is possible that some of them might have been grouped together only because they were Beatys and lived in the same area at one time. They certainly might still all be brothers...but the proof hasn't been found yet. I'm sure the consensus of most L2 researchers is that there is probably some kind of family relationship between them all...or most of them at least. Considering the age span for L2F's James & Phoebe b. 1751/52 and their proven but unknown older brother; L2B's Andrew b. 1761 & Alexander b. 1768; and L2E's John b. 1780, George b. 1783, & David b. 1787, believe the range would be more than 36 years and that's what gets somewhat excessive. My computer program doesn't like using the same mother for a range of children that broad, but guess it might be possible although very unusual. There is no proof that the father of all these sons had more than one wife as is claimed in some secondary sources -- but of course that claim is for John Beaty who was married to Margaret Montgomery. I believe his paternal connection with these men has been disproved. I'm only guessing that the same line of thought could be transferred to William/Billy Beaty now that he has been proven to be the father of at least L2B Alexander & Andrew. Anyway, as Nelda says, "to remove arbitrarly due to differences in ages... not really smart is it??" No, I agree -- many other things were also involved -- but over 36 years of childbearing would be quite a feat even today. There does also seem to be the possibility that some of them might have been arbitrarily connected in the first place due to colocation and that can be a problem too. It was hoped that the creation of the different branches of L2 would highlight some errors of the past so they could be corrected and allow research to be more easily focused on each group. Hopefully, we will be able to find information someday that will allow us to reassemble the L2 family. Nel Rocklein L2B Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:00:49 -0400 From: "Gerri Goodwin" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [BP2000] L2 Beatys BP2000 Digest, Vol 2, Issue 189 To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Hi Nel, Yes, I do consider myself fortunate to have 3 lines of Beatys. I used to think I was the Beaty-est person around but I know of someone else who has 4 lines, so I guess I can't claim that distinction anymore. : ) Thanks for all this great info. About L2B, was it indeed the spread of the ages of David, George, John, Andrew & Alexander that caused them to be discounted as all being brothers? During the early part of the 1900s & prior to that time it wasn't unusual for women in that part of the country to have children over a period of 20 yrs. or more. My foster grandmother had children over a span of 24 yrs. One woman I know of had 20 children over a span of 28 years. So I, personally, wouldn't rule out the possibility of the 5 of them being brothers just on the span of their ages. The best of luck to you with your research. Gerri ************************************** Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour