> > 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>