Wow. Cave's Cove has certainly done a great job organizing some of the early Cave information. I know how much work that is. I would just offer a couple of preliminary suggestions to consider by the group; of course they don't necessarily have to be adopted, and of course they are not all inclusive. I'm sure there are many other good suggestions, the beauty of our collaboration over the Internet. 1) A simple thing...the font might be changed to allow more Cave references to a page. In addition, it might be helpful to pick out a color like blue to actually differentiate the actual name Cave, (i.e. John Cave ) from the given primary source. 2) The sources. This gets a little tricky. I think we should rely on primary sources when available, or at least explain secondary sources. In other words, we shouldn't include a lineage book, a Pilgrim book, a family history book, etc., where these books don't give their primary sources. We also shouldn't use say "Cavaliers and Pioneers" the popular listing of Virginia land patents, but rather list the actual Virginia land patent book, and then possibly say reprinted in...., as a way to access the record. It might also be helpful to put source information in a different font. Marriage bonds, deed, parish records, Bible records, will and estate records, lawsuits, and other written records are of course primary and should be referenced whenever possible, then noted where they are printed or reprinted in. A secondary source would be something like Milner Echol's "History of the Echols Family," wherein Milner states that his great grandfather John Echols married his great grandmother Mary Cave (and goes on to describe her as a tall redheaded woman). This is made more persuasive (and should be noted as such), by primary records (that Milner in 1850 would not have known about) such as John Echols taking out land with a John Cave, records showing John Echols's wife's name was Mary, and perhaps other undiscovered records. A reminder on the importation records. Just because someone patented land for the importation of an individual, or there is a record in England that someone was supposed to be sent to the colonies, does not actually mean that person came here and settled. A lot of people didn't actually make the trip, died on board, came and went back on the ship, or even were fraudulently claimed. That doesn't mean the importation records aren't important, just not to assume a John Cave was actually living in Virginia in 1635 say (although he could have been). Now it does appear a David Cave was imported, was here because he signed a petition, etc. He seems to have been of an age to have been the ancestor of most of the Virginians, and/or is he somehow related to John (brother of one, son of John of 1635?) I still like the idea previously posted of going chronologically up to the Revolution, though I'm certainly not wedded to it. Michael