I tried a few experiments and came to the conclusion that the only married surname found is the one at the top of the list. If there are multiple married surnames, and they are listed in the order of the marriage, the first one is all that counts in a search. If you reverse the list, so that the last marriage is listed first and shows on the displays, then that is the married surname that is found, none of the others are. I tried a the middle one on top, and yes, that was the only one the search found. We will have to put this in the wish list for consideration in the next version. That won't help much right now, but we can't expect Bruce to think of everything, he is too busy trying to get the next version of the program to wash my car. Alfred =============== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Bryan" <c24m48@hotmail.com> > I wonder if the following scenario is a bug I should report, if I am doing > something wrong, or if this is just the way it works. > > I have Mary Jane Peters m.(1) William England m.(2) John Letsinger. A Find > for "given names" "contains" "Mary" AND "married surname" "equal to" > "Letsinger" fails to find the person. If I change the surname to "England" > it all works as it should. I have double and triple checked and I am > confident I have spelled everything correctly in my Find request. > > This situation arose because I had a census entry for the widow Mary > Letsinger, and I was trying to use the power of the Find mechanism to find > all the possibilities in my data base as quickly as possible. So when I > first issued the Find, I didn't know for sure that Mary Jane Peters was the > right one. I subsequently found her by other means, but it sure would be > nice to be able to trust the Find mechanism in this case. > > I am on 9.02 (9.0 plus the patch). > > Thanks in advance for any advice. > > Jerry Bryan > >