Never been known as one to shy away from large numbers... "A complete 35 generation family tree will have 2^35 = 34,359,738,368 ancestors in the 35th generation, which is at least 60 to 100 times greater than the entire population of the world at that time (300 to 500 million)." Obviously, given that information, it doesn't cover all the ancestors who appear multiple times in a given "tree". HOWEVER, it also doesn't take into consideration all the various siblings and their families supported by the average "Dead Relative Collection Software" packages of today. When one averages 3 siblings per ancestor, at least 2 of those 3 likely marrying and having 3.5 children each, the number quickly increases, even accounting for ancestors who appear in multiple lines, one will quickly amass the potential for over a billion entries in the "complete" family tree. I remember reading (somewhere, many years ago, in a magazine on an airline) an article about how many people have lived upon the Earth in its entire history. Some mathematical genius had taken the cut-off in 2000 and used a fancy algorithm to compute a "reasonable" number of humans who had graced this planet with their presence "since the dawn of man (humankind)". As I recall, it was a far smaller number than I'd expected, since in 2000, the world population was something just shy or just over 3 billion. His algorithm came up with a "total" number somewhere between 20 and 25 billion, and that number decreased by about 3 billion when it parsed out the number that lived to adulthood, and less again, those who married, and less again, those who had children. I wish I could find that article again, as I'd suspect parts of it would make for interesting quotes in the foreword/preface of the book I'm supposed to write by summer 2008! Has anyone else seen this or a similar article and knows where to find it? Cheers, Jared > Bill Tufts wrote: >> Once in a while, someone swells up his chest and announces to me that >> he >> has 8,000 names in his family tree, or he has 25,000 names, or, or, >> or....... So, how big is your family tree? >> >> Columnist Pat MacAdam's column appeared in the Ottawa Sun last Sunday >> (May 13) and towards the end of it, he changed the subject and >> explained >> he had been asked by a university in Oregon for a DNA sample and they >> would pick up the $253 (US) cost. >> >> "The object of the DNA test was to determine if I might be a >> descendant of >> Brian Boru, one of the last great kings of Ireland and, therefore, I >> might >> be a Pretender to the Irish throne." >> >> He then explained how the university emailed him weekly reports and he >> and an orange grower in California shared 37 identical DNA markers. He >> concluded with: >> >> "Cold water was dashed on my dreams of ermine and purple when I read >> an online story about Genghis Khan. It seems that a team of credible >> PhDs >> has conjectured there might be between 16-17 million "offspring" of >> the >> warrior walking around with his DNA." >> >> >> Now, have you nearly finished collecting everyone in your family tree? >> > > Brian Boru lived in the 11 th century, or about 1050 years ago. Allowing > 30 years average per generation that is 35 generations. A complete 35 > generation family tree will have 2^35 = 34,359,738,368 ancestors in the > 35th generation, which is at least 60 to 100 times greater than the entire > population of the world at that time (300 to 500 million). > > In other words "everybody is descended from Brian Boru" (and Charlegmagne, > and Julius Caesar, and ...). > > Ron Martell Microsoft MVP > http://onlinehelp.bc.ca > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NEWBRUNSWICK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------ Jared "Jed" Handspicker jedh@jedh.com