Andy Hedgecock said: > Wouldn't it be a good idea to correct the mistakes? You may not get people > willing to help if you're collecting 'errors'. Many of us will unwittingly, have errors of sorts in our trees. The biggest 'errors' are likely to be assumptions of paternity which cannot be proved. Few of us really know who was the father of our gt gt gt grandfather or the others on our trees, we only know what our ancestors claimed to be the case and registrars were told. So much of our research is based on assumptions of paternity that can never be verified. That issue alone must mean that genealogy is an art, not a science. Then there's the misinterpretation of data issue. I initially climbed up the wrong family tree on one of my lines with a very common surname thanks to a remarkable set of coincidences: a badly written Christian name, two families of the surname in the same town, both with similar Christian names except for one, crucial, middle name, all so apparently convincing. I'm acutely aware of how easy it is to make such errors. My guess is that when Kevan says he might have errors, he's being his painfully honest self and acknowledging the possibility of 'errors' of the type above. Colleen