To all Davenport researchers, I have been following the topic of documentation and sources of proof in Davenport genealogical research recently. Without it no one should lay out family lines on the Web, in a published book or a pedigree chart with any authority. However, as several stated one too seldom sees the sources given, let alone an explanation of them. Sometimes the clues or circumstances suggesting one generation leads to the next one are difficult to explain so are not given. Sometimes a conclusion is based on circumstantial evidence such as: 1. The families were living in the same community as shown in deeds, they appeared on the same tax lists or maybe they even deeded land to one another. 2. The families used the same given names for their children. 3. The families migrated from point A to point B about the same time. 4. Depending on how unusual the surname or surnames are, points 1-3 can be more or less meaningful. Points 1-3 may be used in a situation, but again who can judge if it really is enough evidence to state a relationship? If one is proving a wife's maiden name with the above information, it becomes even more questionable or difficult to state a relationship. These three are circumstantial or secondary evidence, but the conclusion of a relationship should be explained to readers and given as tentative which could change. This is done all to infrequently. After a couple of repetitions of the information, it becomes "gospel truth" no matter who first initiated the information. The same circumstances or secondary evidence may not be considered as proof of a relationship to another researcher. Who can establish that there really is enough evidence to prove the relationship in a particular situation? Even the National Genealogical Society wrestles with this problem and not all are in agreement! Does this help anyone? Jane Kyhl Beekman, Muncie, IN