> > I use this numbering for my filing system. Have run across the > > situation of having 1st cousins marrying. He is number 22 and she > > is number 23. His mother would be 45 and her father would be 46. > > This makes THEIR father both 90 and 92. So going further back, I'm > > wondering, do I drop one number "line" or use both, with empty > > lineage? > > > > "Roberta" <gmarob@gmail.com> > > Keep both, but instead of "empty lineage", put in the cross- > reference on the higher number (Already printed as #90). > > I don't see why you're using this very customized numbering system > for filing anything though. The numbers for your ancestors and the > numbers for your child's ancestors will be different, and so will > the numbers for your grandkids or your nephews and first cousins, > although the ancestors themselves are the same. Most numbering > systems are static, to nail down exact identities at a snapshot of > time of publication. If there's a dynamic numbering system I've yet > to meet it. (Richard PENCE may have different information?) > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> No one in my family is at all interested in carrying on the research. I'm mainly using the numbering system because I found it -for me- the simplest to use with my paper files. I like filing by family group. It keeps immediate family right there and the numbering helps find earlier ancestors. My own feeling, too, is that most people use a gen program these days, so numbering really doesn't make any sense in that way. So, I really don't need a numbering system, but use it because my brain seems to like it! Thanks for the input. Roberta "Roberta" <gmarob@gmail.com>

> > I use this numbering for my filing system. Have run across the > > situation of having 1st cousins marrying. He is number 22 and she > > is number 23. His mother would be 45 and her father would be 46. > > This makes THEIR father both 90 and 92. So going further back, I'm > > wondering, do I drop one number "line" or use both, with empty > > lineage? > > > > "Roberta" <gmarob@gmail.com> > > I understand what you are saying as that you have encountered a > problem trying to give each individual in a file a single unique > number. > > As I understand it, there are two points to note about ahnentafel > numbering: > > -- It is relative to a defined beginning individual. Therefore you > can get into difficulty if you try to use it for numbering a > collection of individuals. > > -- It defines both the relationship of an ancestor to that defined > individual and also the ancestral route that links the two > individuals. Therefore it is possible, as in your example, for an > ancestor to have two or more ahnentafel numbers relative to the > defined individual. This makes it not a useful system for permanent > numbering of a collection of related individuals. > > Its main use seems to be in reports where you are looking at the > ancestors of an individual. If you end up with multiple ahnentafel > numbers, so be it, that is correct. Dropping one or the other may > be a solution to your problem but will defeat the purpose of that > numbering system and may lead to a confusing situation. The easiest > solution is to allow affected ancestors to appear multiple times in > the tree. This is okay for computer generated reports, but may not > be convenient otherwise. > > I suspect you would be better off using some other system for unique > numbering of the individuals. > > Incidentally, you don't have to go back many generations before > ahnentafel numbers start to become so large as to be effectively > meaningless to the reader. I imagine that the inventor only > envisaged its use for small numbers of generations. > > Peter J Seymour <mozng@pjsey.demon.co.uk> Peter, Thank you for a clear and concise explanation of the system. Never have seen it put so clearly. I have understood the shortcomings of the system, but went ahead and used it anyway. To date, and as far as I can tell, the oldest ancestor will only be in the 500's and from about 300 back, I doubt, I'll ever see any information on. Simply names. So, unless I run into multiple situations as I've described, I'll keep plodding on. At this point, I guess using 2 numbers for an ancestors will keep the lines running. Roberta "Roberta" <gmarob@gmail.com>

> I use this numbering for my filing system. Have run across the > situation of having 1st cousins marrying. He is number 22 and she > is number 23. His mother would be 45 and her father would be 46. > This makes THEIR father both 90 and 92. So going further back, I'm > wondering, do I drop one number "line" or use both, with empty > lineage? > > "Roberta" <gmarob@gmail.com> Keep both, but instead of "empty lineage", put in the cross- reference on the higher number (Already printed as #90). I don't see why you're using this very customized numbering system for filing anything though. The numbers for your ancestors and the numbers for your child's ancestors will be different, and so will the numbers for your grandkids or your nephews and first cousins, although the ancestors themselves are the same. Most numbering systems are static, to nail down exact identities at a snapshot of time of publication. If there's a dynamic numbering system I've yet to meet it. (Richard PENCE may have different information?) Cheryl singhals <singhals@erols.com>

> I use this numbering for my filing system. Have run across the > situation of having 1st cousins marrying. He is number 22 and she > is number 23. His mother would be 45 and her father would be 46. > This makes THEIR father both 90 and 92. So going further back, I'm > wondering, do I drop one number "line" or use both, with empty > lineage? > > "Roberta" <gmarob@gmail.com> I understand what you are saying as that you have encountered a problem trying to give each individual in a file a single unique number. As I understand it, there are two points to note about ahnentafel numbering: -- It is relative to a defined beginning individual. Therefore you can get into difficulty if you try to use it for numbering a collection of individuals. -- It defines both the relationship of an ancestor to that defined individual and also the ancestral route that links the two individuals. Therefore it is possible, as in your example, for an ancestor to have two or more ahnentafel numbers relative to the defined individual. This makes it not a useful system for permanent numbering of a collection of related individuals. Its main use seems to be in reports where you are looking at the ancestors of an individual. If you end up with multiple ahnentafel numbers, so be it, that is correct. Dropping one or the other may be a solution to your problem but will defeat the purpose of that numbering system and may lead to a confusing situation. The easiest solution is to allow affected ancestors to appear multiple times in the tree. This is okay for computer generated reports, but may not be convenient otherwise. I suspect you would be better off using some other system for unique numbering of the individuals. Incidentally, you don't have to go back many generations before ahnentafel numbers start to become so large as to be effectively meaningless to the reader. I imagine that the inventor only envisaged its use for small numbers of generations. Regards Peter Peter J Seymour <mozng@pjsey.demon.co.uk>

Hello, I use this numbering for my filing system. Have run across the situation of having 1st cousins marrying. He is number 22 and she is number 23. His mother would be 45 and her father would be 46. This makes THEIR father both 90 and 92. So going further back, I'm wondering, do I drop one number "line" or use both, with empty lineage? Hope this makes sense. Thank you, Roberta "Roberta" <gmarob@gmail.com>

On Fri, 8 May 2009 10:29:59 -0700 (PDT), Q <quolla6@gmail.com> wrote: > In August I asked several questions about the new Ancestry YDNA > testing service. There were no substantive replies to the question > asked, though several replies indicated skepticism about the use of > YDNA. > > The question remains a matter of interest. In following up another > problem this morning I came across the Sorenson site which provides > a nice comparison of different YDNA testing services and the markers > used for a 37 marker test. > > http://www.smgf.org/ychromosome/marker_standards.jspx > > These data seem to be directed more toward systematic differences in > values assigned to the markers tested which seems to vary between > testing services. In many cases there's a direct conversion from > one service to another, but in other cases no conversion is known. > As a result, if you make certain choices as to testing service, > comparability with results from other testing services may be > difficult, or limited. > > The Sorenson data does not immediately answer the specific questions > asked. Vis-a-vis, Ancestry and FTDNA, the results look to be > generally comparable. If you did a 33 marker test on Ancestry per > their suggestion, it seems that it would be comparable with data > from a 37 marker test on FTDNA, though obviously you wouldn't be > able to compare results for the 4 markers not tested in Ancestry's > 33 marker test. I note that four markers (probably different from > the four excluded by Ancestry in the 33 marker test) require some > degree of conversion. > > Q Look at Family Tree DNA 37 marker test. Hugh Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)

In August I asked several questions about the new Ancestry YDNA testing service. There were no substantive replies to the question asked, though several replies indicated skepticism about the use of YDNA. The question remains a matter of interest. In following up another problem this morning I came across the Sorenson site which provides a nice comparison of different YDNA testing services and the markers used for a 37 marker test. http://www.smgf.org/ychromosome/marker_standards.jspx These data seem to be directed more toward systematic differences in values assigned to the markers tested which seems to vary between testing services. In many cases there's a direct conversion from one service to another, but in other cases no conversion is known. As a result, if you make certain choices as to testing service, comparability with results from other testing services may be difficult, or limited. The Sorenson data does not immediately answer the specific questions asked. Vis-a-vis, Ancestry and FTDNA, the results look to be generally comparable. If you did a 33 marker test on Ancestry per their suggestion, it seems that it would be comparable with data from a 37 marker test on FTDNA, though obviously you wouldn't be able to compare results for the 4 markers not tested in Ancestry's 33 marker test. I note that four markers (probably different from the four excluded by Ancestry in the 33 marker test) require some degree of conversion. Q On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Q <quolla6@gmail.com> wrote: > Ancestry is now offering YDNA testing. Their on-site blurb for the > YDNA test reads > CHOOSING Y-33 VS Y-46 > > - > > The Paternal Lineage Y-chromosome 33 test is recommended because > it provides the minimum number of markers needed to obtain a > meaningful match between participants. > > - > > You may choose the Y-chromosome 46 test if you want to further > narrow the span of generations for finding a common ancestor with > another participant's Y-46 test. > > What this looks like is a test for 33 markers, versus a test for > 46 markers, but they do not state this explicitly. Nor do they > seem to indicate which markers are being tested. > > I have three questions I hope someone can speak to: > > 1. Does anyone have any experience with YDNA testing on > Ancestry? How does their presentation of results compare with > those of FTDNA (for example) > > 2. Is this indeed for either a 33 marker or 46 marker test? > > 3. If so, this does not match up with the number of markers > commonly tested by FTDNA. Presumably they are testing different > suites of markers. Does anyone know how well the Ancestry suite > compares to the FTDNA tests? > > Q <quolla6@gmail.com>

Our research note for May discusses libraries from Minnesota's borders and some of their resources. Included are both on-line and in-house materials, making them possible destinations on your Minnesota vacation this year! It can be found at http://www.parkbooks.com/Html/res_rscs.html Other notes are available at http://www.parkbooks.com/Html/research.html Enjoy! Mary Bakeman Park Genealogical Books http://www.parkbooks.blogspot.com/ Mary Bakeman <mbakeman@parkbooks.com>

In the naturalization dockets of prothonotary's office, Butler Co., PA are found two records of naturalizations. These records are found on the dockets. Loose papers have been searched unsuccessfully for further information. Where might one find the full naturalization record that includes application and family members' names? 1. John POWELL filed his declaration of intent on 9 April 1833. There is no information indicating he completed the naturalization process in Butler County. 2. Gottleib POWELL filed his declaration of intent on 7 January 1855 and was naturalized 3 October 1857. Thanks for any help. Barbara Mac Barbara McLeod <1brown1blue@gmail.com>

> Thank you for your replies. I appreciate all the suggestions which > have been helpful. > > Happy Hunting > Nancy There is no standard. One well known system is the Dollarhide method of filing. Search for it or the book. bob gillis bob gillis <robertgillis@verizon.net>

> > > What is the "standard" for the filing system to genealogy paperwork? > > > > > > I know that when a woman gets married, you still maintain copies by > > > her maiden name.=A0 So then, how do you file them - by the initial of > > > her maiden name or with her husband's name? Perhaps you make 2 copies > > > - one for her and one for the husbands file. Also do the children get > > > filed with their parents even after marriage or do they get a separate > > > file? Hoping for an easy solution :o) > > > > > > (nothing is easy in genealogy tho) > > > > > > Nancy <nposs1936@yahoo.com> > > > > I don't know how others do it but I file by head of family > > last name. > > > > For instance: > > > > COLEMAN > > > > Then I subfile it by family generation: > > > > Youngs Levi/Lucy Katherine > > > > This has been easier for me. I can't wait to hear other > > people's solutions. > > > > "Terrie Milligan" <Terrie@cavibigoaks.com> > > I'm way behind on emails .... But here's what I do: > > I file by BIRTH LAST NAME, First Name, Middle Initial and then add > the birth year & death year. > > For census, I don't make copies and it is with the head of > household. I do have a Census Summary in each folder as to where a > census is filed if not the HOH. > > I also use the program TMG http://www.whollygenes.com/ where all is > scanned for that so it is easy to find and pull up for viewing. > > "Donna (History Buff) M. St. Felix" <dstfelix@erinet.com> Thank you for your replies. I appreciate all the suggestions which have been helpful. Happy Hunting Nancy

Why would Michael ZIMMERMAN pay twenty six pounds+ to the Commonwealth of PA for a tract of land on which John POWELL? It appears to me that John POWELL obtained a warrant in 1769 for this tract of land. and in 1788 made out a deed for the land to Michael ZIMMERMAN and Jacob BYERS. I don't understand why the price of the land was paid to the Commonwealth of PA rather than to John POWELL. TIA Barbara Mac Patent P 17 Page 470 The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. To all to whom these presents shall come, Greeting. Know ye That in Consideration of the Monies paid by sum of twenty six pounds, two shillings & six pence lawful Money now paid by Michael Zimmerman unto the Receiver Generals Office of this Commonwealth there is granted by the said Commonwealth unto the said Michael Zimmerman a certain tract of land called ?Zeeland? Situate in Pitt Township Westmoreland County. Beginning at a Walnut then by High barren hills, North twenty two degrees West twenty two perches to a Chestnut, North fifty four degrees East forty three perches to a Sugar, North thirty six degrees East sixty seven perches to a Walnut, North sixty degrees East thirty five perches to an Oak, South eighty six degrees East sixteen perches to a Sugar tree, North fifty five degrees East fifty three perches to a white oak, North twenty nine degrees West sixty five perches to a Spanish oak, North seventy three perches & an half to a white oak, North forty seven degrees East forty five perches to a black oak, North sixty seven degrees East sixty perches to a white oak, South fifty nine degrees east twenty nine perches to a buttonwood, South nine degrees East twelve perches to a white oak, East forty one perches to a Hickory, North seventy two degrees East thirty six perches to a buttonwood, South thirty seven degrees West two hundred and forty perches to a post, South fifty four degrees West two hundred & ten perches to the Beginning, Containing One hundred fifty three Acres two thirds & allowance of six perCent for Roads & Cetera. Which said Tract was surveyed in pursuance of an Warrant Application No. 3362 dated 13th June 1769 granted to John Powell and Whereas the said John Powell by Deed dated 11th July 1788 Conveyed the same to the said tract of land to Michael Zimmerman & Jacob Byers And the said Jacob Byers and the said Jacob Byers and by Deed dated 4th September 1789 Conveyed all the right in the said described Tract of land to the said Michael Zimmerman to whom a Warrant of Acceptance Issued 9th November 1795 with the Appointed monies To have and to hold the said Tract or parcel of Land with the Appointed names unto the said Michael Zimmerman and his heirs to the use of him the said Michael Zimmerman his heirs and Assigns forever free and Clear of all Restrictions & Reservations As to Mines, Royalties, Quit rents or otherwise excepting and reserving only the fifth part of all Gold and Silver Ore for the use of this Commonwealth to be delivered at the pits mouth Clear of all Charges. In Witness whereof Thomas Mifflin Governor of the said Commonwealth hath hereto Set his hand & Caused the State Seal to be hereunto affixed the second day of Decemb in the year if our Lord One thousand Seven hundred & ninety five & of the Commonwealth the twentieth Attest James Trimble Tho Mifflin {SEAL} Deputy Sec?y Inrolled the 12th December 1795 Barbara McLeod <1brown1blue@gmail.com>

> > What is the "standard" for the filing system to genealogy paperwork? > > > > I know that when a woman gets married, you still maintain copies by > > her maiden name. So then, how do you file them - by the initial of > > her maiden name or with her husband's name? Perhaps you make 2 copies > > - one for her and one for the husbands file. Also do the children get > > filed with their parents even after marriage or do they get a separate > > file? Hoping for an easy solution :o) > > > > (nothing is easy in genealogy tho) > > > > Nancy <nposs1936@yahoo.com> > > I don't know how others do it but I file by head of family last name. > > For instance: > > COLEMAN > > Then I subfile it by family generation: > > Youngs Levi/Lucy Katherine > > This has been easier for me. I can't wait to hear other people's solutions. > > "Terrie Milligan" <Terrie@cavibigoaks.com> I'm way behind on emails .... But here's what I do: I file by BIRTH LAST NAME, First Name, Middle Initial and then add the birth year & death year. For census, I don't make copies and it is with the head of household. I do have a Census Summary in each folder as to where a census is filed if not the HOH. I also use the program TMG http://www.whollygenes.com/ where all is scanned for that so it is easy to find and pull up for viewing. "Donna \(History Buff\) M. St. Felix" <dstfelix@erinet.com>

Chris Watts wrote: > > Would any/all of you familiar with the handwriting and boiler-plate > > of English documents of the 1695-1710 period PLEASE have a look at > > this one? > > > > One Thomas Crissop died, and this document appears in the records of > > the Ainsty of York. We thought he died 1701; this is in the 1700 > > records which began in January 1700. 4th entry down the image. > > > > I need 2nd and 3rd opinions, as my consultants here disagree. > > > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~cresap/1700/ > > > > Same document, two resolutions; 1700a is the larger but MAY not have > > completely uploaded; 1700b I know finished uploading properly. I do > > have the original tiff file, and a larger jpg but rootsweb keeps > > dropping the connex at just over 50% complete. > > > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> > > Need the higher resolution one to read it without eye-strain - and > it doesn't download for me. I've spent 3 days trying to get the larger files to upload; as I said, the other end drops my FTP connex about half-way through. > I presume that you realise that January 1700 in the Old Style > calendar would actually be January 1701 according to the New Style > Calendar? Yes, of course. Thanks. Cheryl singhals <singhals@erols.com>

> Would any/all of you familiar with the handwriting and boiler-plate > of English documents of the 1695-1710 period PLEASE have a look at > this one? > > One Thomas Crissop died, and this document appears in the records of > the Ainsty of York. We thought he died 1701; this is in the 1700 > records which began in January 1700. 4th entry down the image. > > I need 2nd and 3rd opinions, as my consultants here disagree. > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~cresap/1700/ > > Same document, two resolutions; 1700a is the larger but MAY not have > completely uploaded; 1700b I know finished uploading properly. I do > have the original tiff file, and a larger jpg but rootsweb keeps > dropping the connex at just over 50% complete. > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> Thank you one and all. MUCH appreciated. I was expecting the widow's name to be Sarah; when I saw Eden, I asked my consultants here for help. When they declined to speculate on the Latin abbreviations, I came here. If there is someone reading who disagrees with the attempts of Renia and Matt, please contact me. Cheryl singhals <singhals@erols.com>

http://www.rootsweb.com/~cresap/1700/ It seems you didn't see my contribution yesterday, so let me post it again: See http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/bihr/guideleaflets/administrations.pdf for an explanation of this kind of acts: "If a person did not make a will ("ab intestato", AdM) their estate was dealt with after their death by a process called administration. A person willing to deal with the deceased's estate, often kin but also sometimes a creditor, would visit a surrogate of the bishop and make oaths to the effect that the deceased person had not made a will and that they would administer the estate properly." You'll find Latin acts here, where you can see "cert." is short for "certificavit" (certified): Eod[e]m die d[ic]tus decanus cert[ificavit] se Com[m]isisse Administrac[i]o[n]em bonoru[m] Thom=E6 Crisape nup[er] de Leeds dioc[esis] Ebor[acensis] abintestato (ut asseritur) morien[tis] Eden' Crisape vid[u=E6] ejus Rel[ic]t=E6 prius Jurat[=E6] (salvo et[c.)] Ex[hi]bitu[m] fuit Jnv[entori]u[m] ultra 20 Li[= bras] Et praestita est canc[ellari]o. The same day the said Dean certified that he had granted administration of the goods of Thomas Crisape, late of Leeds in the Diocese of York, who died intestate (as it is asserted), to Eden Crisape, his widow and relict (=3D surviving partner), after she had first been sw= orn, saving the rights [of any other person with a claim, salvo iure cuiuscumq= ue]. An inventory was exhibited above =A320 and she was presented to the cancellarius (secretary, so that this administration could be registe= red, I think. In the shown documents it is "et ... obligatur", and she was bou= nd). August de Man "Aug. de Man" <augdeman.a.gmail.dot.com@dr3.euro.net>

On Apr 8, 1:46=A0am, ml...@le.ac.uk wrote: > I thought I posted a transcript of the Crisape entry an hour ago, but > it hasn't appeared, so here is another one: > > [ It was cross-posted with soc.genealogy.methods, and Methods is a > moderated group and there are inevitable delays. I've posted both > your articles, because I think there is some difference in the > content. - the soc.genealogy.methods moderator ] Unfortunately the discussion on soc.genealogy.britain moved on during the two days which it took for my two posts to get through the soc.geneaglogy.methods system. Yesterday I posted a third (and better) answer to soc.genealogy.britain alone (having finally noticed and deleted the cross-posting to soc.genealogy.methods) which superseded the first two (the main difference was a correction of the date - it is 4 June 1700, not Jan 1700/1). That third post appeared on soc.gen.britain immediately, and the two points I was doubtful about were subsequently cleared up by another poster. Matt Tompkins mllt1@le.ac.uk

On 5 Apr, 16:16, singhals <singh...@erols.com> wrote: > Would any/all of you familiar with the handwriting and boiler-plate > of English documents of the 1695-1710 period PLEASE have a look at > this one? > One Thomas Crissop died, and this document appears in the records of > the Ainsty of York. =A0We thought he died 1701; this is in the 1700 > records which began in January 1700. 4th entry down the image. I thought I posted a transcript of the Crisape entry an hour ago, but it hasn't appeared, so here is another one: [ It was cross-posted with soc.genealogy.methods, and Methods is a moderated group and there are inevitable delays. I've posted both your articles, because I think there is some difference in the content. - the soc.genealogy.methods moderator ] Eod[e]m die D[ic]tus Decanus* Cert' se Comisisse Adminitrac[i]o[n]em bonoru[m] Thome Crisape nup[er] de Leeds Dioec[esis] Ebor[acensis] abintestato (ut asseritur) morien[s] Eden' Crisape Vid[ue] ejus Rel [ic]te prius Jurat[a] (Salvo et[c.)] Ex[hi]bitu[m] fuit Jnv[entoriu]m ultra 20 Li[bra] Et praestita est Canc'o * this refers back to the first entry on the page, which says: Ainsty Anno D[omi]ni 1700 Quarto die Mensis Jan[uar]ij Anno D[omi]ni pred[icto] M[agiste[r] Laurentius Benson Cl[er]icus Decanus Decanatus pred[icti] ... As someone has already said, this is almost certainly 1700 Old Style, ie 1701 New Style. I'm not sure what that last word is - from the context you'd expect 'compotus', but I can't persuade myself that's what it says. Nor am I sure of the correct extension of Cert' in the first line; it's an unusual construction I haven't seen before, though the sense is clear - that letters of administration were issued Matt Tompkins mllt1@le.ac.uk

On 5 Apr, 16:16, singhals <singh...@erols.com> wrote: > Would any/all of you familiar with the handwriting and boiler-plate > of English documents of the 1695-1710 period PLEASE have a look at > this one? > One Thomas Crissop died, and this document appears in the records of > the Ainsty of York. =A0We thought he died 1701; this is in the 1700 > records which began in January 1700. 4th entry down the image. It says: "Eod[e]m die* D[ic]tus Decanus** Cert. se Com[m]isisse Administrac[i]o [n]em bonoru[m] Thome Crisape nup[er] de Leeds Diaec. Ebor. abintestato (ut asseritur) morien[s] Eden Crisape Vid[ue] ejus Rel[ic] te prius Jurat[a] (Salvo et[c.)] Ex[hi]bitu[m] fuit Jnv[entu]m infra 20 Li[bra] Et praestita est ?Canc'o" I'm not sure what the last word is. 'Compotus' would fit the sense, but it doesn't really look like that. * refers back to the first entry, which is dated "Quarto die Mensis Jan [uar]ij Anno D[omi]ni pred[icto]" - which the heading says is 1700 (Old Style, which is 1701 New Style). ** the first entry says this is "Laurentius Benson Cl[er]icus Decanus Decanatus pred[icti] - ie of the Ainsty] Matt Tompkins mllt1@le.ac.uk

> Would any/all of you familiar with the handwriting and boiler-plate > of English documents of the 1695-1710 period PLEASE have a look at > this one? > > One Thomas Crissop died, and this document appears in the records of > the Ainsty of York. We thought he died 1701; this is in the 1700 > records which began in January 1700. 4th entry down the image. > > I need 2nd and 3rd opinions, as my consultants here disagree. > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~cresap/1700/ > > Same document, two resolutions; 1700a is the larger but MAY not have > completely uploaded; 1700b I know finished uploading properly. I do > have the original tiff file, and a larger jpg but rootsweb keeps > dropping the connex at just over 50% complete. > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> Keep in mind that 1700 is in that period where double dating occurred based on which calendar was used. Between January 1 and March 'something' (I believe) may be given as January 1 1700, January 1 1701 or January 1 1700/01. Eventually everyone using the modern calendar gave January 1 as the beginning of the year. Patrick Patrick Eagan <PatrickEagan@REMOVETHISbellsouth.net>