In a message dated 5/20/2011 5:02:05 P.M. Central Daylight Time, equisand@equiformratings.com writes: Here's the rub : No matter what I do, I cannot see how the last person on the pedigree is a NEIL. I make him out to be Gillzuie, possibly an ancestor of one of the people Sir James Lamont was referring to. I can see how it could be mistaken for a Neil, but to me it looks like the 'G' has been mistaken as an 'e', and I suggest that the letter following the ll is a z, giving extra credence to it being Gillzuie when considered in conjunction with what Sir James said. However, if I then look at the person two positions higher up, I do indeed see a neill, pre-ceded by what looks like two 'd's but with inconsistent curls in the upper portion of the 'd's. I can't make out what follows the neill. Anyway, I think that this line has been misread as including a domnaill until now. Here's what I make of it. I put two versions online, one color, one grayscale. Each has it's own difficulties and virtues. Some things tend to disappear in the gray scale version. _http://clanmaclochlainn.com/GRAY.jpg_ (http://clanmaclochlainn.com/GRAY.jpg) _http://clanmaclochlainn.com/COLOR.jpg_ (http://clanmaclochlainn.com/COLOR.jpg) If you want to manipulate these as suggested download the image and use a graphics program. I think the last person in the pedigree in line 29 is indeed a Nial. Following Nial you can read a g....ub. The authors of the online transcription took the ub to be ab, ie, an abbreviation for abbot. Line 28 is very hard to read. But line 27 clearly contains a form of Domhnall (Donaill?). Now look at how the editors of the online version transcribed the last line. mhic Niall guirm i. ab ite the "uirm" is in red. That means it's purely guesswork. What they could read is what I can read as described above. Neill g.....ub except they read "ab" for "ub." Don't expect to find mhic fully written out anywhere in the text. It generally precedes each line and looks like a .i. with a c over it. Or a small m with a c over it. I cannot make out much of this. But the more eyes looking at it the better. We need however to be looking at the same lines. John