John I'm now convinced that you are right about the Lamont pedigree as suggested in MS1467 being seriously flawed. I think there are possibly as many as 6 errors. However, I spent about 20 years in the financial markets. I don't think many would suggest that the markets are short of liars. So I've spent about 20 years of my life trying to separate lies from truths. One thing that stands out is that skilful liars tend to camouflage their lies with truths. They also don't lie unless necessary to achieve some gain. If we view the pedigree in this light (and I think it is fair to think that seanachies were, at the very least, expected to be skilful in their lying) it seems logical to me that the pedigree is a mixture of the truth, some deliberate lies, and some unintended errors. And it may be able to glean some of the truths from the whole. To my mind, we can accept without any doubt that Laumon was the son of Ferchar. That's clear from the Charter about the lands that the Paisley monks were granted use of. Then, I think we can assume that Sir James Lamont was truthful in his 1661 declaration about the Gille Dubhs. The man had spent the previous 15 years either imprisoned or on the run. His life was almost ruined and I don't think could have been in the frame of mind to concoct a fancy pedigree. In any event, he claimed nothing fancy, just that he had an ancestor called Orcanus, and another one called Gille Dubh. That's where I'm going to start. Sandy