Hi Orlena, I agree with you 100%. When preparing your family tree (or documenting your GEDCOM file), knowing if cousins share more than one grandparent is important and useful in research. This information should be included as well as any other you have learned in the course of your research. The genealogical (or family tree) software with which I am familiar provide for incorporating known data about parentage when you enter your family tree into a computer. My only point is that the term first cousin is defined as a person who shares one grandparent with another person. If they share two grandparents they are still first cousins. First cousins can even share the same two grandparents in more than one way, and they possibly could share all four grandparents without being siblings. To be precise, you must include the family link when you specify a relationship as first cousin. In my case, my father's mother was the daughter of John Riley and Mary Humphrey. Mary Humphrey died after my grandmother was born, and her father John Riley remarried Elizabeth Powers with whom he had four more children. Those children were first cousins of my father in the Riley line but in neither the Humphrey or Powers lines. There is no denying that such information is important when you are trying to find all of your family relationships. Back when my father was a lad, he would have been severely reprimanded if he had ever referred to one of his mother's "half brothers" as a half uncle or to any of his "half cousins" as anything but cousins. If you want to get "up" on all of the identifications, the Wikipedia online encyclopedia is an excellent resource, one which you can be sure is monitored by professional genealogists. Charles On 10 Feb 2008, at 10:30 PM, Orlena wrote: > I'm not a genealogist and I'm certainly not up to all the > identifications, BUT it seems it would make a difference to know > the person was a full, half, step, adopted, foster, courtesy or > whatever description would help keep you from chasing their > ancestors you had absolutely no interest in. Not only that it would > keep you from trying to find how they fit into your family tree, > when they didn't. > > In these circumstances, if available the exact relationship and > how is always appreciated. > > Without those relationship notes, research can get very confusing > and be very frustrating. > > For example: I was helping someone with her family tree. She had > two cousins, surnames the same, different than hers, but shared > with her grandmother. She spent years looking for the common > ancestors. The one we could not connect to the other at all. My > conclusion, they were both her cousins, but either not related to > each other, or the relationship was through the maternal lines and > the surnames were a coincidence. > > My mother-in-law had an Uncle Frank Canady and his wife was Aunt > Mary. This gentleman I can not relate to her Canadys at all. We > don't have any information on him or his wife Mary. She may have > been related via Mary instead of Frank, or to his mother, not his > father. This could have also been a courtesy title and they were no > relation at all. > > I left a jar with contact information in it several years ago on > their graves, finally I got an email just awhile back... > Unfortunately she was asking if I knew who his parents were. She > belonged to his line, but had no information about his family. > > My mother-in-law had no idea either, but she'd called them Uncle > and Aunt. > > So, I'm for as much information as possible, just in case you or > someone needs it later. > > Orlena > ~~~~~ >