In a message dated 5/22/2011 9:12:57 A.M. Central Daylight Time, bernardmorgan@hotmail.com writes: [How about after "Ic Doneill" on line 27 the entry "Ic Meilaert" ? Further reading I correct myself to "Ic Meilacr" (I cannot tell if a "t" runs into the curve of the "r"), so I am closer to original transcription of "gillacrist". I am no experted at reading Gaelic manuscripts, however I still struggling to see "gillacrist". After the Mhic in the middle of line 27, there seems to be an M followed by what looks like somewhat like an "e". This conflict with what I would have expected to have seen as Gillacrist. (Maybe what I see as a possible "t" at the end is just a shorthand line above the "r".) It's too bad we don't have a better clearer manuscript to work with. If we've looked at the examples from Ballymote and Lecan we know what a good manuscript looks like. I don't see anything clear at all following Donaill in line 27. I do not see a mic or ic. If this is a version of the traditional Anradan descent one would expect not a mic following Donaill but something like Ard macha. I can possibly see that a little in line 27 but nothing definite. I think there definitely is an m following some distance after Donaill - but I see three letters prior to that - which just could be Ard. But then maybe I'm seeing what I expect to see from the traditional pedigree. If we could nail down at least one line in the pedigree we'd have an answer because the traditional Anradan pedigree is so well known. The last line is a real puzzle to me (Line 27). I clearly see a Neill followed closely by a g. I'm sure that's how Skene came up with Nialgusa in this version. Yet if you look at Ballymote and Lecan the g in glundubh also closely follows the word Niall but in this case it's clearly two separate words. I can also see how the online editors came up with Nial guirm ab. ite (Abbot of Iona). There is something following the ub or ab which is not expected from a line ending in Nial glundubh. I think that's what Skene called Alberice. In Ballymote Nial glundubh appears as Neillgl...d. That may be in the MS. 1467 but there is something after that. In Lecan the same name is Neill gl. duibh. I don't know if I truly see that or not in 1467 but if so there is still something tagged on at the end. John