J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > > I wanted to avoid your question. I don't know who appoints them. I > suspect you could be one in the UK if you are a recognized authority > on the subject. It's a long time since I appointed anyone to anything and I certainly wouldn't want to appoint anyone to define the bounds of genealogy or any other area of study. It's simply not useful to do so as any such bounds are likely to be outgrown. For instance a definition of genealogy from not very long ago would have excluded DNA. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:39:24 +0000, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: >> >> I wanted to avoid your question. I don't know who appoints them. I >> suspect you could be one in the UK if you are a recognized authority >> on the subject. > >It's a long time since I appointed anyone to anything and I certainly >wouldn't want to appoint anyone to define the bounds of genealogy or any >other area of study. It's simply not useful to do so as any such bounds >are likely to be outgrown. For instance a definition of genealogy from >not very long ago would have excluded DNA. >-- >Ian I am satisfied with a competent group setting standards for quality and accurate genealogy. I doubt that I follow (or even know) all the standards. A competent group will always be on top of change. I don't know that DNA would have been excluded. It's just another source, or tool, to be used. I doubt that any standard would even attempt to list all the tools that can be used. A male and a female procreate. The offspring and their descendants are the basis of what many people call genealogy. If the momma isn't sure who the daddy was it doesn't change the genealogy - ir might change the names of record. I think genealogy that does not include events is too skimpy to consider. Those events are the family history of the genealogy. I don't want to get bound up in semantics - I use the easiest and most refognizeable terms to mose people. They may lose something in translation if you are not an American from the USA. Hugh