Richard wrote: > I don't see anyone questioning this premise. But neither has anyone > actually shown where new generations have been confirmed as a direct > result of this improved focus. Anyone engaged in a one-name study for any length of time is bound to have lots of cases where the available evidence falls short of proving the suspected connections. Obviously, some of these won't be suitable for DNA testing, as they may involve people without known male-line descendants or may involve people who are known to be closely related anyhow. Still, it seems likely that you have in your own files some testable cases that you believe you have solved, but that a skeptical observer would not accept. You can certainly let those continue to simmer on the back burner, hoping that more evidence will turn up, but you can also attack them from a new angle. A DNA demonstration that two lines are related could be enough to put you over the top, thus confirming a new ancestor by DNA testing. Then again, a demonstration that they are unrelated could shoot your theory down instead. John Chandler "John F. Chandler" <JCHBN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>