Carole, I would be careful not to consider any of these references as "sources". At least in the sense that you should pick one as truth over another. I would simply use them as a lead. These works had to have found actual source documentation somewhere? This is what we must seek out. The source documents either are there, or where there. The earliest writers, the secondary sources (like the quoted 'Visitation' pedigree) used these source documents plus family provided information. I agree with what John Wedgwood Pound wrote that even these secondary source pedigrees may not be very accurate. Since it is also likely that the 'Visitation' documentation was some of the "source" material that Cope and others used, accruracy is removed once again. Again, consider all leads in seeking the truth, and try not to get frustrated. It is clouded by time. Hope this helps. Mike <><~~~~<><~~~~<><~~~~<><~~~~<><~~~~<><~~~~<><~~~~ The Dunton Family Homesite http://www.web-ster.com/miked list manager for dutton-l@rootsweb.com & dunton-l@rootsweb.com <><~~~~<><~~~~<><~~~~<><~~~~<><~~~~<><~~~~<><~~~~ -----Original Message----- From: Carole Malisiak [mailto:malisiak@midohio.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 3:40 PM To: DUTTON-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Heraldic Chart Hi! I checked out a link that Mike had mailed us and found it extremely interesting. It is a Heraldic Visitation of Cheshire, 1580. This pedigree also does not agree with Cope!! and does not agree with the Chart from Dick!! But it does say that Huddard is a cousin to W. Conqueror. The more information that I see, the more different lines we have. I guess you just have to pick one source and stick with it. But, you would think that one of them has to be the right one!!! http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/8555/visit.html Confused in Ohio. Carole