The following is forwarded to the list with permission, and is something to be aware of when doing IGI searches: ""I have had some private messages re my post on this topic (i.e. no males appearing in the online IGI in some batches extracted from the OPR - specifically Straiton) but thought that I would reply on list. MY QUERY TO THE LDS I have written to the Familysearch people asking them (a) why only one sex appears to have been extracted from certain OPRs into the online IGI, (b) whether the full records are in the films of the parishes involved (I assume - and hope - that they must be),(c) what the situation is with the old microfiche, (d) how one can find out which OPRs have had only one sex extracted into the online IGI, and (e) why there is no mention of this anywhere on their site.  I will let the List know when I get a reply. LANARK LIST However, I have also done some further searching and find that this matter has been raised on the Lanark list.  A Lanark lister who had found the same problem (i.e. males missing in certain LKS birth/christening batches) queried the LDS and quoted the following as the reply she received "Under certain circumstances, we perform extractions that meet particular criteria. The situation you mentioned is one of these, and we extracted only one gender.  There is no need to make corrections to this information." HUGH WALLIS'S SITE I have also found that Hugh Wallis, on his magnificent site, writes as follows at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~hughwallis/IGIBatchNumberFAQs.htm#O nlyFemales: 'The following is an explanation from the director of the LDS library that was forwarded to me by an interested user of this site: "Thank you for your note. Your observations are correct and at least to some degree explainable. More females attend LDS temples than males creating an imbalance in the inventory system. To solve that issue, the batches were split into male and female (J and K batches). The females were sent to the temples, and in some cases the male portion of the batch has not yet been sent, but is waiting in the inventory." I'm not personally convinced this totally explains it but that is the official explanation anyway. That same user also forwarded me this observation; "Incidentally, I have since discovered that some of the missing males are in the Vital Records Index - for example for Dauntsey, Wiltshire, 1653-1885, females only are in the IGI, both males and females are in the VRI." ' One can't complain - after all, where would we all be without the LDS work. But it does seem puzzling. Judy Philip Adelaide, South Australia edward Limpsfield, Surrey Using Norton Anti-Virus 2003