singhals wrote: >snip > > I'm sorry, but I truly do not see why the methodology would change > country-dependent. The name of the specific references, yes, but > surely not the _methodology_? Cheryl you are asking how to find the birth/baptism record of an unknown person in an unknown county. YES, the answer to your question is probably county specific and even name specific. None of your queries ever give names, date or places and people are always asking for them to try to give you an answer. All I can think of your not wanting to give more information is that you are searching for heirs and are afraid that a subscriber will try to highjack your search. I have given up even trying to answer your questions. [ Everybody, do be patient with each other. Cheryl's been around here for a very long time and has a reason for what she's doing, but everyone else does have a point that it's hard to really bite into a problem without a fair amount of detail. - Mod ] bob gillis bob gillis <[email protected]>

"singhals" <[email protected]> schreef: > Check. For the parishes in question there APPEARS to be a unbroken > run of record books and entries in all cited parishes. For all denominations? If you were researching Scotland, you could imagine that having worked your way through the Church of Scotland records, you'd checked everything, but there were all these off-splits, each of whom had their own registers. > Actually, it wasn't. (g) But saying why will give details and get us > further into the weeds. :( I'm afraid that groping around in a fog isn't my favourite activity, and without knowing even the country, that's exactly how this feels. Every country has its quirks (e.g. the assorted scottish churches, ALL claiming to be Presbyterian). We keep telling the beginners to help us to help them, and this time you're being just too cryptic. Lesley Robertson "Lesley Robertson" <[email protected]>

> > It would help if you would mention the country of origin, and > > specific town. A lot of countries have more than one town with the > > same name. Plus someone on the list may be familiar with the > > geographic area and be able to provide some insights based on that. singhals wrote: > I'm sorry, but I truly do not see why the methodology would change > country-dependent. The name of the specific references, yes, but > surely not the _methodology_? Well, of course it would. The resources are different in different countries. One wouldn't advise someone to look at Familienb=C3=BCcher for neighboring villages if the country were Italy, or advise someone to look at the national birth, marriage, and death register if the country were Germany. As Tom pointed out, he would give different advice for England, Germany, Sicily, and France. As Lesley also pointed out, historical differences have resulted in differences in the types of records that have survived. I'm sorry, but I truly do not see why you're so interested in hiding the country in which you're researching. If you ask a vague question, you can expect to get a vague answer. Kathy kql <[email protected]>

[email protected] wrote: > > ...I have one clue, and one only, to an ancestor's place of origin in > > Europe: he claimed he was naming his successive plantations for his > > home town. > > > > Unfortunately, the baptismal records in that home town (and the 8 > > parishes surrounding it) fail to include his surname. There should > > be his baptism and the baptisms of two of his siblings. There are > > two burials of the right surname, and one en passant mention of > > something that happened at (surname)'s house. That's it for a > > period of roughly 75 years. One would expect a "home town" to have > > more mentions of the name. Yes, I've been _very_ flexible on the > > surname (I have about 36 known variants and another 24 possible > > variants). > > > > I checked the IGI and the Vital Records Index, checked more recent > > document-indices, etc etc and found nothing encouraging; there are > > no concentrations of the surname, only one or two instances at a > > time in places that would have been _widely_ scattered in the 1700s. > > > > Someone help me out -- If he didn't come from where he said he came > > from, and where everyone who met him said he was from, where's the > > first place I should look next? > > > > Cheryl > > I'll presume first that the country in question is Germany-Prussia- > Bavaria. (I'm going out on a limb here, as a rereading of your > message implies perhaps Ireland or Britain.) I can offer less > certain advice about Italy and France... > > First, the IGI is rather hit-or-miss, as not all parish registers > have been transcribed, nor have all been fully microfilmed. So > there are gaps in the IGI, as well as the mistranscriptions. If you Check. IGI is still a place you daren't skip, though (g). > have any certainty of the area (not known exactly from your Well, I know with certainty where he said he was born. I'm working on proving the truth of his assertion. > description), you might try a corroborative research effort for a > known or presumed birth or marriage at the Standesamt, the archives > of which are usually at the county (Kreis) level. > > Failing that, and much more likely to produce only negative results, > would be a comparison of nearby towns (perhaps a radius of 15 km, 10 > mi) on the map, in the IGI, and represented by microfilms through > the LDS. (This is not a small task!) Once compared, it might point > to some parish registers that have not yet been transcribed, and > which might be your first areas to search through. Check. There seem to be close to 500 films at LDS. With the most willing spirit in the world, the flesh will never manage to read all of 'em. Published transcriptions ... those checked have revealed nothing more than the shred of a hint. > Perhaps, if a Familienbuch (FB) exists for the known community, it > might be worthwhile to hunt it down. Some FBs are archived in > diocesan houses, but perhaps only about 30%. More are of much more > recent vintage and not yet archived. Often the very best FB authors > made use of not only the Kirchenbuch (KB) but also some or much of > the available civil records. Often the best FBs include towns of > origin that may not have been included in the KB, as often the > author is a local historian who has independent knowledge of some > families. Again, though, the FB should be treated as a secondary > source, one that indicates where to search for primary material. > > I could be much more specific if I knew exactly what area you are > researching, and I can offer some similar information for research > in Sicily and provincial France. No, this is exactly the type thing I'm needing. Before I officially declare this this to be an undomesticated waterfowl, I want to be sure I haven't overlooked any major area. I've got the area-specific checklists, but I've got the same situation in three countries and I want to be sure I've got the major headers covered. Thanks. Cheryl singhals <[email protected]>

Lesley Robertson wrote: > "singhals" <[email protected]> schreef: > > >I need brainstorming help ... > > > >I have one clue, and one only, to an ancestor's place of origin in > >Europe: he claimed he was naming his successive plantations for his > >home town. > > Where, in Europe? It's important as different wars (civil, national > and international) have not done a lot for record survival - your > first question has to be about which registers have survived. It Check. For the parishes in question there APPEARS to be a unbroken run of record books and entries in all cited parishes. > can be patchy - single books can go missing, or whole series. For > example, in one scottish town I search, the baptismal registers go > back to the early 1700s, the oldest marriage register is missing and > those records don't start until the 1840s. > > > Someone help me out -- If he didn't come from where he said he came > > from, and where everyone who met him said he was from, where's the > > first place I should look next? > > Depends on the country - the local genealogical or history offices > might be a good place. Actually, it wasn't. (g) But saying why will give details and get us further into the weeds. :( Cheryl singhals <[email protected]>

> > I have one clue, and one only, to an ancestor's place of origin in > > Europe: he claimed he was naming his successive plantations for his > > home town. > > > > Unfortunately, the baptismal records in that home town (and the 8 > > parishes surrounding it) fail to include his surname. > > Someone help me out -- If he didn't come from where he said he came > > from, and where everyone who met him said he was from, where's the > > first place I should look next? > > > > Cheryl Singhals > > It would help if you would mention the country of origin, and > specific town. A lot of countries have more than one town with the > same name. Plus someone on the list may be familiar with the > geographic area and be able to provide some insights based on that. > > kql <[email protected]> I'm sorry, but I truly do not see why the methodology would change country-dependent. The name of the specific references, yes, but surely not the _methodology_? Cheryl singhals <[email protected]>

> ...I have one clue, and one only, to an ancestor's place of origin in > Europe: he claimed he was naming his successive plantations for his > home town. > > Unfortunately, the baptismal records in that home town (and the 8 > parishes surrounding it) fail to include his surname. There should > be his baptism and the baptisms of two of his siblings. There are > two burials of the right surname, and one en passant mention of > something that happened at (surname)'s house. That's it for a > period of roughly 75 years. One would expect a "home town" to have > more mentions of the name. Yes, I've been _very_ flexible on the > surname (I have about 36 known variants and another 24 possible > variants). > > I checked the IGI and the Vital Records Index, checked more recent > document-indices, etc etc and found nothing encouraging; there are > no concentrations of the surname, only one or two instances at a > time in places that would have been _widely_ scattered in the 1700s. > > Someone help me out -- If he didn't come from where he said he came > from, and where everyone who met him said he was from, where's the > first place I should look next? > > Cheryl I'll presume first that the country in question is Germany-Prussia- Bavaria. (I'm going out on a limb here, as a rereading of your message implies perhaps Ireland or Britain.) I can offer less certain advice about Italy and France... First, the IGI is rather hit-or-miss, as not all parish registers have been transcribed, nor have all been fully microfilmed. So there are gaps in the IGI, as well as the mistranscriptions. If you have any certainty of the area (not known exactly from your description), you might try a corroborative research effort for a known or presumed birth or marriage at the Standesamt, the archives of which are usually at the county (Kreis) level. Failing that, and much more likely to produce only negative results, would be a comparison of nearby towns (perhaps a radius of 15 km, 10 mi) on the map, in the IGI, and represented by microfilms through the LDS. (This is not a small task!) Once compared, it might point to some parish registers that have not yet been transcribed, and which might be your first areas to search through. Perhaps, if a Familienbuch (FB) exists for the known community, it might be worthwhile to hunt it down. Some FBs are archived in diocesan houses, but perhaps only about 30%. More are of much more recent vintage and not yet archived. Often the very best FB authors made use of not only the Kirchenbuch (KB) but also some or much of the available civil records. Often the best FBs include towns of origin that may not have been included in the KB, as often the author is a local historian who has independent knowledge of some families. Again, though, the FB should be treated as a secondary source, one that indicates where to search for primary material. I could be much more specific if I knew exactly what area you are researching, and I can offer some similar information for research in Sicily and provincial France. Best of luck! Thomas Kohn [email protected]

"singhals" <[email protected]> schreef: > I need brainstorming help ... > > I have one clue, and one only, to an ancestor's place of origin in > Europe: he claimed he was naming his successive plantations for his > home town. Where, in Europe? It's important as different wars (civil, national and international) have not done a lot for record survival - your first question has to be about which registers have survived. It can be patchy - single books can go missing, or whole series. For example, in one scottish town I search, the baptismal registers go back to the early 1700s, the oldest marriage register is missing and those records don't start until the 1840s. > Someone help me out -- If he didn't come from where he said he came > from, and where everyone who met him said he was from, where's the > first place I should look next? Depends on the country - the local genealogical or history offices might be a good place. Lesley Robertson "Lesley Robertson" <[email protected]>

> I have one clue, and one only, to an ancestor's place of origin in > Europe: he claimed he was naming his successive plantations for his > home town. > > Unfortunately, the baptismal records in that home town (and the 8 > parishes surrounding it) fail to include his surname. > Someone help me out -- If he didn't come from where he said he came > from, and where everyone who met him said he was from, where's the > first place I should look next? > > Cheryl Singhals It would help if you would mention the country of origin, and specific town. A lot of countries have more than one town with the same name. Plus someone on the list may be familiar with the geographic area and be able to provide some insights based on that. kql kql <[email protected]>

> > I'm looking for a program that will let me print out an entire > > family tree including my uncles, aunts, and cousins and their > > families. Most of the programs do a great job of assembling a > > pedigree for printing, but I want to include a broader range. A > > choice of layouts would be nice, too.... TIA > > [email protected] > > > > [email protected] > > GenoPro (http://www.genopro.com/) is designed to do exactly what you > describe; that is, print a COMPLETE family tree. A free download of > a time-limited demo is available on their web site. > > Mardon <[email protected]> It has been a long time but if memory serves me correct, I believe that "Brothers Keeper" would do that. Jim Hills

I need brainstorming help ... I have one clue, and one only, to an ancestor's place of origin in Europe: he claimed he was naming his successive plantations for his home town. Unfortunately, the baptismal records in that home town (and the 8 parishes surrounding it) fail to include his surname. There should be his baptism and the baptisms of two of his siblings. There are two burials of the right surname, and one en passant mention of something that happened at (surname)'s house. That's it for a period of roughly 75 years. One would expect a "home town" to have more mentions of the name. Yes, I've been _very_ flexible on the surname (I have about 36 known variants and another 24 possible variants). I checked the IGI and the Vital Records Index, checked more recent document-indices, etc etc and found nothing encouraging; there are no concentrations of the surname, only one or two instances at a time in places that would have been _widely_ scattered in the 1700s. Someone help me out -- If he didn't come from where he said he came from, and where everyone who met him said he was from, where's the first place I should look next? Cheryl singhals <[email protected]>

> I'm looking for a program that will let me print out an entire > family tree including my uncles, aunts, and cousins and their > families. Most of the programs do a great job of assembling a > pedigree for printing, but I want to include a broader range. A > choice of layouts would be nice, too.... TIA > [email protected] > > [email protected] GenoPro (http://www.genopro.com/) is designed to do exactly what you describe; that is, print a COMPLETE family tree. A free download of a time-limited demo is available on their web site.

> I'm looking for a program that will let me print out an entire > family tree including my uncles, aunts, and cousins and their > families. Most of the programs do a great job of assembling a > pedigree for printing, but I want to include a broader range. A > choice of layouts would be nice, too.... TIA > > "nohilow" Nohilow, If you're using a Macintosh PC I recommend MacFamilyTree from OnlyMac Software (http://www.onlymac.de/indexe.html). In addition to pedigree views they have some interesting ways of presenting the database including Family Charts to show how members of various families interconnect, Descendant Charts, a Timeline view to see where all the relatives fall in history in relation to one another, a Genogram view, Life Expectancy statistics, a basic Person View, and a neat World Map view which plots the location of relatives at various times (if you've entered latitude/longitude coordinates for their residences). The last one is a Summary View which looks a bit like a bio, including picture if you've imported one into the database. Not sure if any of those would do what you want except maybe the Person View that's sort of like a listing. Joseph Mann <[email protected]>

Mardon <[email protected]> wrote: > [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: > > > You might comment on this please... > > > > I am the only Sullivan (tested so far) who was predicted to be > > in the R1a1 haplogroup - the rest are in R1b or R1b1. I > > understand that both are (may I say subsets) of R. How likely > > is it that I would differ that much unless there was basis? An > > educated opinion is sufficient. > > I ordered a 37 Marker Y-DNA test from FTDNA and the predicated > haplogroup provided along with those results was Q3. When I paid > for the SNP test (P36+M3-), my haplogroup turned out to be Q. If > you're curious, my results are posted here: > http://www.Erbland.org/results.htm Not that it matters but we match 16 of 37. Q and R are both subgroups of P. > It's my understanding that haplogroup predictions are considered > reasonable because there's a strong correlation between haplotypes > (the Marker results) and haplogroups (the SNP results). I do not > know if this correlation is uniform with respect to different > haplotypes but I suspect not. If that's true, then estimating the > likelihood of a prediction being accurate (for example, 19 times out > of 20) would vary depending on the haplotype. I have no idea about > the actual accuracy rate of haplogroup predictions made from > haplotypes. I don't know that changing from say R1a1 to R would help or hurt because of your next paragraph. > All of this is why I finally ordered the SNP test. Bear in mind that > haplogroups don't mean much for finding relatives. I was just > curious. I'm no expert at any of this but I think that haplotype > information is useful for genealogical purposes because it mutates > over a period of a few hundred years or less. Haplogroups, on the > other hand, were defined tens of thousands of years ago. This makes > these results of very limited use for genealogical purposes. I do > not know if it's possible to have a close haplotype match and a > haplogroup mismatch; I would think not. If you are comparing your > predicted haplogroup with someone else's predicated haplogroup, the > chances of an incorrect prediction are doubled. My suspicion is > that when two people have a closely matched haplotype, but a > predicted haplogroup mismatch, something has gone wrong with the > prediction. > > Regardless of the haplogroup am I not looking for a 35/37 marker > > match, or better, to have any genealogical meaning for me since > > my provable data only extends to 1790? I have genealogies and > > logic extending further back but no provable link. > > I'm not sure why you say this. I think it's the reverse. It's my > understanding that to 'prove' (statistically speaking) a common > relative, tests using more markers are warranted as the common > relative gets closer. It must also be kept in mind that > genealogical Y-DNA haplotype matches 'prove' things only to a > certain level of statistical certainty. They do not have the same > level of statistical certainty as the results of a forensic DNA > test. Yes, my 35/37 match is 40%-60% probable at the 6th-8th generation but he is not a Sullivan which tells me hanky and panky got together sometime. Unless I ultimately match one particular line where apparently no one has yet tested, DNA testing will do me no genealogical good because I already have my genealogy further than anyone else and I have that line as far as anyone - I just can't link to them yet in the 5th to 9th ancestor generation but I'm close. If we all descend from one woman in Africa (current scientific theory I think) we may, or may not, descend from one father. Assuming a single father all groups A-R are just mutations and we are all looking for the same genealogy. > Caveat: DNA genealogy is only part of my family history hobby. I'm > the administrator of the "Erbland DNA Surname Project". I know > nothing about DNA other than what I've picked up as part of my > hobby. > Cheers, Mardon You are obviously "experter" than I. Thanks, Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)

<snip> Cheers, Mardon BTW, This is my 2nd try at posting this. Hope it doesn't appear twice. [ The Moderator would like to apologize for the delay. You all may have read about the "Day" fire burning in California's Los Padres National Forest. Karen and I live there, and have been (and are still) under an evacuation order. Things have been a bit chaotic as we secured Linkpendium's servers ... - Mod ] Mardon <[email protected]>

I'm looking for a program that will let me print out an entire family tree including my uncles, aunts, and cousins and their families. Most of the programs do a great job of assembling a pedigree for printing, but I want to include a broader range. A choice of layouts would be nice, too.... TIA [email protected]

[email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: > You might comment on this please... > > I am the only Sullivan (tested so far) who was predicted to be > in the R1a1 haplogroup - the rest are in R1b or R1b1. I > understand that both are (may I say subsets) of R. How likely > is it that I would differ that much unless there was basis? An > educated opinion is sufficient. I ordered a 37 Marker Y-DNA test from FTDNA and the predicated haplogroup provided along with those results was Q3. When I paid for the SNP test (P36+M3-), my haplogroup turned out to be Q. If you're curious, my results are posted here: http://www.Erbland.org/results.htm It's my understanding that haplogroup predictions are considered reasonable because there's a strong correlation between haplotypes (the Marker results) and haplogroups (the SNP results). I do not know if this correlation is uniform with respect to different haplotypes but I suspect not. If that's true, then estimating the likelihood of a prediction being accurate (for example, 19 times out of 20) would vary depending on the haplotype. I have no idea about the actual accuracy rate of haplogroup predictions made from haplotypes. All of this is why I finally ordered the SNP test. Bear in mind that haplogroups don't mean much for finding relatives. I was just curious. I'm no expert at any of this but I think that haplotype information is useful for genealogical purposes because it mutates over a period of a few hundred years or less. Haplogroups, on the other hand, were defined tens of thousands of years ago. This makes these results of very limited use for genealogical purposes. I do not know if it's possible to have a close haplotype match and a haplogroup mismatch; I would think not. If you are comparing your predicted haplogroup with someone else's predicated haplogroup, the chances of an incorrect prediction are doubled. My suspicion is that when two people have a closely matched haplotype, but a predicted haplogroup mismatch, something has gone wrong with the prediction. > Regardless of the haplogroup am I not looking for a 35/37 marker > match, or better, to have any genealogical meaning for me since > my provable data only extends to 1790? I have genealogies and > logic extending further back but no provable link. I'm not sure why you say this. I think it's the reverse. It's my understanding that to 'prove' (statistically speaking) a common relative, tests using more markers are warranted as the common relative gets closer. It must also be kept in mind that genealogical Y-DNA haplotype matches 'prove' things only to a certain level of statistical certainty. They do not have the same level of statistical certainty as the results of a forensic DNA test. Caveat: DNA genealogy is only part of my family history hobby. I'm the administrator of the "Erbland DNA Surname Project". I know nothing about DNA other than what I've picked up as part of my hobby. Cheers, Mardon Mardon <[email protected]>

> <*snip*> > > One male that I linked logically proved to be a different > > haplogroup which was very disheartening. In fact no other > > tested Sullivan so far matches my haplogroup which is very > > alarming as far as extending my genealogy. > <*snip*> > > [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) > > You've referred to haplogroup results in both your OP and the quote > above. I wonder if you understand that the hapolgroup 'result' that > FTDNA provides as a result of the 37-marker Y-chromosome test is NOT > a result of testing for your haplogroup. That 'result' is merely a > prediction of a likely haplogroup based upon your STR Marker > results. To determine your Haplogroup from a real DNA test, you must > order an SNP Biallelic Marker test. ( SNP = Single Nucleotide > Polymorphisms.) The haplogroup prediction they gave me from my STR > 37-Marker results was NOT the same as the results from my SNP test. > If you are seriously interested in your hapolgroup, you need to > order the SNP test. > > Mardon <[email protected]> I was aware of that BUT I was unaware that the prediction might be incorrect. Thank you for the information. I am just barely smart enough to know that I know very little about DNA. You might comment on this please... I am the only Sullivan (tested so far) who was predicted to be in the R1a1 haplogroup - the rest are in R1b or R1b1. I understand that both are (may I say subsets) of R. How likely is it that I would differ that much unless there was basis? An educated opinion is sufficient. Regardless of the haplogroup am I not looking for a 35/37 marker match, or better, to have any genealogical meaning for me since my provable data only extends to 1790? I have genealogies and logic extending further back but no provable link. I note that there are tests beyond the 37 markers but the last I read they are not too important at this point - certainly not if no Sullivans test more than 37 and so few Sullivans test. Thank you again for the valuable contribution to the thread. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)

<*snip*> > One male that I linked logically proved to be a different > haplogroup which was very disheartening. In fact no other > tested Sullivan so far matches my haplogroup which is very > alarming as far as extending my genealogy. <*snip*> > [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) Hello Hugh, You've referred to haplogroup results in both your OP and the quote above. I wonder if you understand that the hapolgroup 'result' that FTDNA provides as a result of the 37-marker Y-chromosome test is NOT a result of testing for your haplogroup. That 'result' is merely a prediction of a likely haplogroup based upon your STR Marker results. To determine your Haplogroup from a real DNA test, you must order an SNP Biallelic Marker test. ( SNP = Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms.) The haplogroup prediction they gave me from my STR 37-Marker results was NOT the same as the results from my SNP test. If you are seriously interested in your hapolgroup, you need to order the SNP test. Mardon <[email protected]>

"Ron Head" <[email protected]> wrote: > > [snip] > > > > I did the 37 marker test because that was the best available at the > > time. > > > > Be advised that linking to ancestors depends on a number of > > conditions. In my case my closest link is to a man whose family > > name is not even in my genealogy but we have a 60% chance of having > > the same ancestor 7 or 8 generations ago. I only have 5 generations > > proven. > > > > To really learn something you almost have to match someone who has > > the genealogy back to the Bible. > > > > More than 30 Sullivans have tested and I am not in the same > > haplogroup as any of them so I have learned nothing so far except my > > Neanderthal ancestors went from Africa to the Russian Steppes. > > Yeah, I know, the Neanderthals forgot to keep breeding and > > disappeared. No political comments please. > > > > "J. Hugh Sullivan" <[email protected]> > > It sounds as though y-DNA testing of some cousins might be called > for--male line descendants of your paternal grandfather, great- > grandfather, great-great-grandfather, etc--in order to insure that > you all share the same y-DNA. I'm working on it both for the direct line and two lines that I can logically prove related. But logic is not proof until a DNA test. > I would certainly want confirmation that I shared y-DNA with my most > distant known SULLIVAN cousin; that way, I would be fairly sure that > if there was an adoption or "non-paternal event" in my ancestry, it > must have occurred at least several generations back. That is one of the potential problems, Ron. My gg grandfather had 5 base born children by 3 different ladies. He married the first who had two of his sons (probably had something to do with the proximity of the shotgun); my great grandfather was the second of those two. I would like to presume that he had the sole service contract for the lady he married but she could have sub-contracted. My closest match, so far, is 35 of 37 markers with a man named Wollard who refuses to respond to e-mails. 35 of 37 is 40%-60% probable at the 6th through 8th generation. I locate Wollards where they would need to be geographically but no bedroom evidence. So, did a Wollard have a base born by a Sullivan lady 250 years ago and the male child was a Sullivan since they were not married? Or, did my 5th great grand sire a child by a Wollard lady and he retain the Wollard name for lack of a ring? In either event my line would share DNA with the Wollards but I would be a Wollard in the first case and a Sullivan in the second instance. Therefore it is imperitive that a male presumed to be of my line tests. I have no brothers and my dad's brothers have no living male issue. But I know several from other lines who share the same gg grand. One male that I linked logically proved to be a different haplogroup which was very disheartening. In fact no other tested Sullivan so far matches my haplogroup which is very alarming as far as extending my genealogy. I've already told you more than I know and understand so I'll stop and await further developments. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)