I can't claim to have a perfect solution. For lines that have already been researched, most of the time I use the spelling that the researcher used, but not always. For instance, Bethel M. Newcomb wrote the Newcomb genealogy. He consistently spelled the name "Newcomb" even though the Canadian cousins spell it "Newcombe". I defer to their spelling when it is known. For lines I research, I use the spelling I find in the official records for each individual, regardless of how other generations spelled it. Sometimes this is the median (most common) spelling. One example is the Childerstone surname. This is found as everything from "Chylderstone" to "Chillison". My wife's Basque ancestry is proving most interesting. Not only are the names totally unpronounceable (e.g. de Ochandategui) but the spellings are all over the map. For instance, the name "Zugadi" is found with that spelling as wells as "Sugadi", "Zugari", "Sugari" and probably a few others. The key thing to remember is that it was not the same way then as it is now. Only a few people knew, or cared, how their names were spelled. No one cared what your exact date of birth was. You probably didn't have a birth certificate. And when you decided to change how your name was spelled, you didn't have to get a permit from a judge. About 1880 one of my cousins changed his name from Childerston to Childerson because he thought Childerston sounded "too English". One day, he just announced, that from then on, that was going to be his name. All of his descendants are "Childersons." Don Newcomb ----- Original Message ----- From: Yvonne Bennett <yvonne@monmouth.com> | How do some of you deal with multiple spellings of the same surname? I