Clare, It sounds as if you have a problem that can easily be solved. You just mixed up the merge function with the backup and restore routine. I'm assuming you still have your updated file on the laptop. Make a gedcom of the laptop file, IF the FO file is from a different version of Family Origins. Rename the old database on the other computer to something else. Make a new database of the same name as previously and import your gedcom into it. If you have the same version of Family Origins on both computers, all you need do is make a backup of the file from the laptop, then use the restore function to override the database on the desktop computer. Then do the opposite when you want to update the laptop version. I highly recommend putting the same version on both computers. Always keep backups of your databases for the rare occasion when something could go wrong. Margaret Scheffler ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clare" <Clare@Sierratel.com> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 7:38 PM Subject: [FO] Merge/Duplicate > Recently, I imported my GEDCOM from my laptop, where I had worked on it while out of town to my desktop, where the older version was. I then asked for a duplicate search and did a smart merge. I thought "merge" meant that it would update the record, but what it did was jumble both records together, so that children and spouses are now duplicated. Instead of eliminating any duplicates, it created many more. Now what do I do? I've been going through and choosing and then deleting duplicates by going one by one down the list of names, but it's taking forever. Is there any other way to truly eliminate duplicates? > > Clare

Recently, I imported my GEDCOM from my laptop, where I had worked on it while out of town to my desktop, where the older version was. I then asked for a duplicate search and did a smart merge. I thought "merge" meant that it would update the record, but what it did was jumble both records together, so that children and spouses are now duplicated. Instead of eliminating any duplicates, it created many more. Now what do I do? I've been going through and choosing and then deleting duplicates by going one by one down the list of names, but it's taking forever. Is there any other way to truly eliminate duplicates? Clare

Alfred Have I missed something - I know I delete many messages without reading them. It's probably best to include some of the subject message when referring to an incident which requires such a mail from the listmaster. DM "Alfred Eller" <adeller@santel.net> wrote: I think this has gone far enough! STOP sending messages to this list telling us the MORALITY or CORRECTNESS of doing things one way or another. I imagine that there is a forum, somewhere, that deals with that sore of thing, but, "THIS AINT IT!" Family Origins, is one of the best genealogy programs around, it is certainly the easiest one to use that I have found. If someone needs help using the program, there are several people on this list who will try to help them. And yes, we can sometimes give them a nudge in what we think is the right direction on how to record certain things. I do not want you to send comments, pro or con, on this mailing to the list either. There is WAY too much off topic junk in the archives already. The Family-Origins-Users-Mailing list administrator Alfred Eller ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== Family Origins GenForum - http://genforum.genealogy.com/fo/ Tech Support Knowledge Base http://www.familyorigins.com/support/ ============================== Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

Sorry to butt in, but.......... I asked this same question a few weeks ago and was taken to task by the purists. I realize they were right in the genealogical sense. Our eldest daughter has a different father, (she is linked to him in "Other Spouse") but I wished to include her as a sibling to my children since the four children have been close since 1951 on. This same thread seems to repeat with the desire to include a child as a part of an database. But, since the eldest is not a genealogical part of MY Ancestral File and I have no way of finding her father's ancestors (yet), I can't include her in a true sense of the matter. However, for the sake of love for, and in, the family, I did as was suggested and linked her to my line in another database. In the main database, she is listed as the child of her genetic father. I usually print out both lines when attending a reunion and it is noted by all present what has been done. It may not be proper, but it works for us. Everyone knows my wife had a different husband before I came along. Harold Williams willhn@flash.net ----- Original Message ----- From: David E. Cann <decann@infi.net> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 9:40 PM Subject: Re: [FO] Ancestor Book > Why do we need the sarcasm????? I simply asked a question about whether or > not it was possible to do this, and it seems it is not (yet) without > altering the facts, so can we simply go on without the snide remarks (this > time)?? > > Certain folks on this list seem to have quite a knack for doing that. . . . > . . . . . . > > David > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > > On 06/09/2001, at 8:02 PM, Henry Wheeler wrote: > > >Wow, you have convinced me. Only the exact correct, NGS, LSMFT, > >approved method should be used....... Too bad my biological mother was > >addicted to diet pills and my father came down with tuberculosis! Oh > >well, must do correct thing. > > > >Henry > <clip> > > MSgt David E. Cann, USMC (Ret'd) > Phone: 540-372-7868 > Fax: 540-372-7707 > E-mail: decann@infi.net > Family home page: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~decann >

I just printed an ancestry report for my niece Darlene. She has two half-siblings, a brother and a sister. I had placed a note under her mother, that she had been previously married to: ?????? with which she had two children: David, and Clara. You could include as much or as little info as you wish, even including David's and Clara's spouses and children, and if you print the "notes" this will print in your ancestry record under the mother's name. The names above are used for example only, but the relationships are real. John O. Graybeal

UNSUBSCRIBE

There is nothing in FOW that prevents you from defining the "Raised By" as a fact. Just define it. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Bryan" <c24m48@hotmail.com> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 8:57 AM Subject: [FO] Adopted and Unadopted Children > >>A child will print out under her natural > >>parents and not under a step parent (unless the pedigree has > >>been falsified of course) and it would be improper for it to > >>display otherwise. > > >It is just totally absurd to say that it is improper to show an > >adopted child as a child in her adopted family. > > My problem in this regard is actually on a descendant report rather than on > an ancestor report. So everything is not fixed by going to a descendant > report. > > I produce a descendant report for family reunions, so living people are > included (unlike what I post on the Internet). People like seeing the > reports, but they get really picky about what I consider minor problems (off > by a few days for an event, or having an event in the wrong county). > Leaving a person out of the report is more than a minor problem. > > My first cousin married a woman who had a young child from a previous > marriage. The child's father had nothing to do with the child, and the > child was raised as the natural child of my cousin. However, I don't think > my cousin ever officially adopted the child. > > Needless to say, the child does not appear in my report, and everybody > notices that I "left out" the child. If my cousin actually adopted the > child, would that cause the child to appear in the report? But if he didn't > really adopt the child (I could ask him), is there some way I could add a > "raised by" fact that would cause the child to appear in the report? I > wouldn't want the report to say there was an adoption if there wasn't. > > I think the real problem is that people at a family reunion want a family > history report. Family Origins (and all its competition) is a genealogy > program and produces genealogy reports. > > The reunion in question is our Peters family reunion with descendants of > Grandma and Grandpa Peters (actually, my mother's grandparents and my great > grandparents). And this child was not a descendant of Grandma and Grandpa > Peters, nor was she a spouse of a descendant. > > But spouses of descendants are not really descendants. They are spouses of > descendants and parents of descendants, but they are not descendants. Would > it really be too much of a stretch to have an option whereby siblings of > descendants would be included, even if those siblings were not themselves > descendants? > > Jerry Bryan > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > The "Family Origins® Wish List" http://formalsoft.com/wishlist.htm > ??? FAQ ??? -- http://www.graabek.com/fow/fofaq.html > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 > Source for Family History Online. Go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/subscribe/subscribetrial1y.asp?sourcecode=F11HB

----- Original Message ----- From: "Herb Clark" <hclark@ghoti.org> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com>; "John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 10:34 AM Subject: New Report of Ancestors with Spouses and Children shown previously Re: [FO] Ancestor Book > So let's get over the hang up of calling it an "Ancestor" report and > call the report something more descriptive (no name suggested). I'm sorry, but I think it IS an ancestor report. Let me give an example of what I mean, using my own case. ANCESTORS OF JOHN STEELE GORDON 1. John Steele Gordon was born May 7 1944 in New York City. 2. Richard Haden Gordon was born Mar 30 1919 in New York City. He died Nov 16 1977 in Honolulu, Hawaii. He was married to Mary Alricks Steele on Mar 31 1942 in New York City. He was married second to Kyle MacDonnell (born . . .) on May 3 1950 in New York City. He was married third to Nancy Arakaki (born . . .) on Jun 15 1958 in New York City 3. Mary Alricks Steele was born Oct 26 1921 in New York City. She died Jan 17 1967 in Boston, Massachusetts. She was married second to Reginald Hammerstein (born Jun 18 1898 in New York City, died Aug 10 1958 in New York City). Richard Haden Gordon and Mary Alricks Steele had the following children: Richard Haden Gordon was born Jan 9 1943 in Medford Oregon. he died Nov 13 1995 in Taos, New Mexico 1. John Steele Gordon. Richard Haden Gordon and Kyle MacDonnell had the following children: George MacDonnell Gordon was born . . . . Richard Haden Gordon and Nancy Arakaki had the following children: Mariko Osceola Gordon was born . . . 4. Richard Haden Gordon was born Dec 30 1881 in Nashville, Tennessee. he died Aug 4 1978 in North Salem, New York. 5. Rebecca Wilson Carson was born Apr 8 1890 in Spartenberg, South Carolina. She died Jun 17 1979 in North Salem, New York Richard Haden Gordon and Rebecca Wilson Carson had the following children: Katherine Carson Gordon was born . . . 2. Richard Haden Gordon Ralph Carson Gordon was born . . . Eleanora Cunningham Gordon was born . . . . 6. John Nelson Steele was born Jul 12 1882 in Baltimore, Maryland. He died on Aug 23 1935 in Port Washington, New York. 7. Katharine Lyman was born Dec 12 1882 in Englewood, New Jersey. She died Dec 26 1969 in New York City. John Nelson Steele and Katharine Lyman had the following children: Etc. Etc. Would it really be so difficult a programming task to generate such a report? > While not an easy report to generate in reverse format concept, it is > not something that is beyond Bruce's programming capability. However, I > can tell you that it will require MANY hours of programming for it to > be accomplished even for Bruce and I am certain that it is somewhere on > his list of items requested to be accomplished but with a lower > priority to be done due to the amount of programming effort required. > Typically programmers tackle the easiest jobs first (or those that > appear to be able to please a large amount of people). Well, that is how the world works. If there is no demand for this, then there is no demand. But since David Cann and I both would very much like to see this capability built into FO, there is at least SOME demand. If there is not enough demand to warrant Bruce's time, then so be it. But are both David Cann and I so utterly offbase in wanting this capability? I still don't quite understand why tea cozy collecting can appear but other spouses cannot. The only answer I've ever gotten to that question is "Because you can't." JSG

>>A child will print out under her natural >>parents and not under a step parent (unless the pedigree has >>been falsified of course) and it would be improper for it to >>display otherwise. >It is just totally absurd to say that it is improper to show an >adopted child as a child in her adopted family. My problem in this regard is actually on a descendant report rather than on an ancestor report. So everything is not fixed by going to a descendant report. I produce a descendant report for family reunions, so living people are included (unlike what I post on the Internet). People like seeing the reports, but they get really picky about what I consider minor problems (off by a few days for an event, or having an event in the wrong county). Leaving a person out of the report is more than a minor problem. My first cousin married a woman who had a young child from a previous marriage. The child's father had nothing to do with the child, and the child was raised as the natural child of my cousin. However, I don't think my cousin ever officially adopted the child. Needless to say, the child does not appear in my report, and everybody notices that I "left out" the child. If my cousin actually adopted the child, would that cause the child to appear in the report? But if he didn't really adopt the child (I could ask him), is there some way I could add a "raised by" fact that would cause the child to appear in the report? I wouldn't want the report to say there was an adoption if there wasn't. I think the real problem is that people at a family reunion want a family history report. Family Origins (and all its competition) is a genealogy program and produces genealogy reports. The reunion in question is our Peters family reunion with descendants of Grandma and Grandpa Peters (actually, my mother's grandparents and my great grandparents). And this child was not a descendant of Grandma and Grandpa Peters, nor was she a spouse of a descendant. But spouses of descendants are not really descendants. They are spouses of descendants and parents of descendants, but they are not descendants. Would it really be too much of a stretch to have an option whereby siblings of descendants would be included, even if those siblings were not themselves descendants? Jerry Bryan _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

>Needless to say, the child does not appear in my report, and >everybody notices that I "left out" the child. The appropriate response would be "No, not left out; the child appears in the pedigree under his natural mother and father. You then go on to explain how genealogy traces blood lines while family history puts the flesh on the bones with all the details and show the fact and notes concerning the child. >If my cousin actually adopted the child, would that cause the >child to appear in the report? No, it won't. The child stays under his or her biological parents. The appropriate way to handle this situation is to insert an adoption fact and make the appropriate notes in both genealogies - under the biological parents and under the "adoptive" parent pair. >But if he didn't really adopt the child (I could ask him), is >there some way I could add a "raised by" fact that >would cause the child to appear in the report? I >wouldn't want the report to say there was an adoption if >there wasn't. FOW has a fact type for Adoption but yes, you can create a fact type called Raised by if you choose. You might handle the "formal" adoption issue this way: What is the child's last name? If the child's last name is that of the biological parent or the mother's maiden name, then don't show an adoption fact. If the name is that of the "adoptive" parent, then show it as an adoption. -- Happy Hunting!! -- Paul Houston, TX, USA ICQ #73314929 Researching: VA - WHITE,LIPSCOMB,HILL,JOHNSON,SAUNDERS, TALBOT,TATE,EVANS NC - SMITH, BOSWELL, RHODES, CAPEHART,MORRIS, MARSHE, BRITT,SHAW View my American Ancestry at: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~paulrsmith **************** FREE Credit Card Referral Program. Quick money AND residual, lifetime income! CHECK IT OUT !! http://smithecomservices.tripod.com ***************************************

----- Original Message ----- From: "Alfred Eller" <adeller@santel.net> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 10:29 AM Subject: [FO] Scolding > > I think this has gone far enough! > > STOP sending messages to this list telling us the MORALITY or CORRECTNESS of > doing things one way or another. I'm sorry, but I do not know what this is in reference to or to whom it is addressed. Neither morality nor correctness (whatever that might be) has been mentioned lately that I know of. JSG

----- Original Message ----- From: "Guest, Jim and/or Olline" <jguest@republic.net> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 10:04 AM Subject: Re: [FO] Ancestor Book > "David E. Cann" wrote: > > > I have just printed out an "Ancestor Book" for my wife's line, with the > > "Ancestors and children" option selected, but when I printed out the > > document, my wife noticed right away that her half-sister (same father, > > different mother) was left out of the printed document, with only her five > > "full" siblings included. I have never noticed this before, but is this > > normal? Is there a way of "forcing" FO (I am using 9.02) to include such a > > family member? > > ============= > > David, > > Wouldn't that be "forcing" FO to distort the "facts", which is what we otherwise want FO to record? No, it would not, unless FO stated that the half sister was a full sister. If it stated that she was the daughter of the wife's father by a previous marriage, it would simply be telling the truth. A report such as I suggested in my first post would make that perfectly clear. JSG

----- Original Message ----- From: VPierce851@aol.com To: ancestry@optonline.net ; FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 9:18 AM Subject: Re: [FO] Ancestor Book >If you use the "Descending Book" it works just fine. It will list everyone - >half-sisters & brothers, even adopted children. It is just when you try to >go up from a certain person that it only lists those from whom you descend. >In my case, I have eight half brothers and sisters. If I start with my name >and go up the scale to my ggggrandfather, it will only show "MY" ancestors >and will not show any of my half-siblings. I don't see how Bruce could make >it do so. By programming FO to generate a report including the information on other spouses and half-siblings such as I suggested in my first post. I know of no technical reason such a report would be impossible. It simply needs to be programmed to make it possible. I only ask that an ancestor report for ME show MY ancestors. But I want it to show EVERY spouse of those ancestors and EVERY child of those ancestors, without my having to enter that information by hand. That's what computers are for. It's as simple as that. I am not descended from my uncles and aunts, and yet the ancestor report shows them perfectly happily, because they are the children of TWO of my ancestors. I want the report to show ALL of the children of EACH ancestor, even when these children are the result of other marriages, or non-mariages, as the case may be. :-) (No children out of wedlock in recent generations that I know of, but my medieval ancestors were a randier bunch apparently.) That does not strike me as an unreasonable request. The information is in the database. All that's needed is the permission of the ahnentafel police to allow that information to be put automatically where I want to put it. Saying that I can add it in an RTF is to say that I cannot use my computer for the purposes that computers exist--the manipulation of information--when it comes to putting data into a genealogical report that contains the word "ancestor" in its title, unless the ahnentafel police agree. I say the hell with that. >I tried going back to my ancestor, using my youngest grandchild. It only >printed "HIS" ancestors, which did not include any of my half-siblings. >If you start with the oldest ancestor and go down to the present, it will >show everyone in your computer that is related to that ancestor. I know that I can have a print out of these people in a descendent report. The problem is I want to see these people MENTIONED--their existence acknowledged--in an ANCESTOR report. I don't want it said that they are my ancestors, they are not. I just want ALL of the children and ALL of the spouses of my ancestors listed in an ancestor report that discusses, sometimes at length, the lives of these ancestors. Why is that once I enter into my database that an ancestor collected tea cozies, I can have that information placed, automatically, in an ancestor report, a descendant report, in a grocery list if FO generated reports called grocery lists. But the fact that my great grandfather had a second wife CANNOT, MUST NOT be automatically included in a report called Ancestor? Why the hell not? My great grandfather is my ancestor. I want the information about his second wife in the report along side the fact that he collected tea cozies (which he didn't, by the way, he collected notably high golf scores instead). JSG

On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 10:01:28 -0400, John Steele Gordon wrote: >By programming FO to generate a report including the information on other >spouses and half-siblings such as I suggested in my first post. I know of >no technical reason such a report would be impossible. It simply needs to be >programmed to make it possible. > >I only ask that an ancestor report for ME show MY ancestors. But I want it >to show EVERY spouse of those ancestors and EVERY child of those ancestors, >without my having to enter that information by hand. That's what computers >are for. It's as simple as that. So let's get over the hang up of calling it an "Ancestor" report and call the report something more descriptive (no name suggested). I think you are asking for a Descendant report in reverse but to get the same results you would have to generate a report from every end ancestor of the person for whom you are unable to print this type of report presently. Lots of cut and paste effort and not always easy to get properly formatted. While not an easy report to generate in reverse format concept, it is not something that is beyond Bruce's programming capability. However, I can tell you that it will require MANY hours of programming for it to be accomplished even for Bruce and I am certain that it is somewhere on his list of items requested to be accomplished but with a lower priority to be done due to the amount of programming effort required. Typically programmers tackle the easiest jobs first (or those that appear to be able to please a large amount of people). Herb Clark

I think this has gone far enough! STOP sending messages to this list telling us the MORALITY or CORRECTNESS of doing things one way or another. I imagine that there is a forum, somewhere, that deals with that sore of thing, but, "THIS AINT IT!" Family Origins, is one of the best genealogy programs around, it is certainly the easiest one to use that I have found. If someone needs help using the program, there are several people on this list who will try to help them. And yes, we can sometimes give them a nudge in what we think is the right direction on how to record certain things. I do not want you to send comments, pro or con, on this mailing to the list either. There is WAY too much off topic junk in the archives already. The Family-Origins-Users-Mailing list administrator Alfred Eller

Dear John: If you use the "Descending Book" it works just fine. It will list everyone - half-sisters & brothers, even adopted children. It is just when you try to go up from a certain person that it only lists those from whom you descend. In my case, I have eight half brothers and sisters. If I start with my name and go up the scale to my ggggrandfather, it will only show "MY" ancestors and will not show any of my half-siblings. I don't see how Bruce could make it do so. I tried going back to my ancestor, using my youngest grandchild. It only printed "HIS" ancestors, which did not include any of my half-siblings. If you start with the oldest ancestor and go down to the present, it will show everyone in your computer that is related to that ancestor. Virginia Kimes Pierce VPierce851@aol.com

"David E. Cann" wrote: > I have just printed out an "Ancestor Book" for my wife's line, with the > "Ancestors and children" option selected, but when I printed out the > document, my wife noticed right away that her half-sister (same father, > different mother) was left out of the printed document, with only her five > "full" siblings included. I have never noticed this before, but is this > normal? Is there a way of "forcing" FO (I am using 9.02) to include such a > family member? ============= David, Wouldn't that be "forcing" FO to distort the "facts", which is what we otherwise want FO to record? The "fact" is that your wife's half sister has different parents, and if that "fact" is recorded, and her parents included, her half sister will appear in the family record in her proper position without any "forcing". Sometimes it's our emotions that needs "forcing" to accept the "facts" as they are. Jim

----- Original Message ----- From: "David E. Cann" <decann@infi.net> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 7:10 PM Subject: [FO] Ancestor Book > I have just printed out an "Ancestor Book" for my wife's line, with the > "Ancestors and children" option selected, but when I printed out the > document, my wife noticed right away that her half-sister (same father, > different mother) was left out of the printed document, with only her five > "full" siblings included. I have never noticed this before, but is this > normal? Is there a way of "forcing" FO (I am using 9.02) to include such a > family member? I have long complained about this limitation in FO, as half-sibling are, after all, a common phenomenon (I have two of them myself, each by a different step-mother). I think it stems from the ahnentafel form of the ancestor report, which assigns a unique number to each ancestor, even ones for male ancestors, odd ones for female. It's a great, indeed elegant system. But a surprising number of people seem to think it was brought down from Mt. Sinai by Moses along with the Torah and is thus inviolate: flesh-and-blood ancestors, and their children begotten by flesh-and-blood ancestors only maybe included, lest the world come to an end. It is *not* sacred. The ahnentafel form is a tool that may be adapted to other uses, just as we use a screw driver to open a can of paint. If other spouses of ancestors are included along with half siblings, I promise you that the sun will rise in the east the next morning right on schedule. Could someone answer me a question? Is it technically possible for the ancestor report to be designed so as to be able to produce something like the following?: 48 David Smith. Born, died, blah blah blah. He was married to Mary Jones on October 14th, 1936, in New York City. David Smith and Mary Jones had the following children. John Smith Mary Smith He was married to Elizabeth Brown on March 23rd, 1947, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 49 Elizabeth Brown was born, died, blah blah blah. David Smith and Elizabeth Brown had the following children. David Smith, Junior. Elizabeth Smith I don't know much about programming (OK, OK, I don't know anything about programming), but I can't imagine this would pose insuperable difficulties. It would solve Mr. Cann's problem, my problem, and a lot of other people's problems in this regard. Then the only problem would be the wailing and lamentation of the ahnentafel police, who have some sort of weird psychological investment in preventing such a report from being generated lest the seven plagues of Egypt return. If such as above is technically possible, would Bruce PLEASE consider allowing us to have it? I will personally guarantee it will not cause catastrophic climate changes. By the way, adding half-siblings in an RTF file seems simple, but it is not. I find the tabbing so complex that, except for adding text within a paragraph, it is nearly impossible to get things to line up correctly after I add or subtract something. The more I try to make things look right, the wronger they go until things are such a mess I have to give up and start over. JSG

<< "Paul Smith" <prsmith@pdq.net> wrote: >A child will print out under her natural >parents and not under a step parent (unless the >pedigree has been falsified of course) and it would be >improper for it to display otherwise. I think what got lost in translation here is that David was not attempting to ~or~ asking for help in "falsifying" anyone's pedigree. He simply was seeking a means of accomplishing a "print-out" that would depict the inclusion of this child in the family chart. -=Kevin Benson=-

>This is for the express purpose of getting adopted children to >show up in the reports of their adopted families as well as in >their birth families. I believe that this is an unfortunate limitation of the database that Bruce tries to prevent (or at least make us aware of) via the Problem List. I sure wish the program warned of this problem sooner because it makes for a really messy pedigree if you blindly import a gedcom without checking everything carefully. -- Happy Hunting!! -- Paul Houston, TX, USA ICQ #73314929 Researching: VA - WHITE,LIPSCOMB,HILL,JOHNSON,SAUNDERS, TALBOT,TATE,EVANS NC - SMITH, BOSWELL, RHODES, CAPEHART,MORRIS, MARSHE, BRITT,SHAW View my American Ancestry at: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~paulrsmith **************** FREE Credit Card Referral Program. Quick money AND residual, lifetime income! CHECK IT OUT !! http://smithecomservices.tripod.com ***************************************