TOPIC OF DISCUSSION: Its posted that the father died in 1690, but son was born 1720... Of course, this is impossible.. My question IS: Am I missing 1 or generations? Im thinking 1, but can also see where it might be 2.. One View: If father died and young and had a small child and the child grew up and had a child is the only way I can see that it would not be the second gen. away. I tend to agree with you, but what do the rest of your think? Is there a way that it COULD be 2 and not 1 generation? Lanita