I'm glad you asked that question because it has been bothering me. Only I phrase it differently: Where is the line between "family history" and genetics? Is there a point where one says that it is family that is important, not genetics, or does one stick strictly to a genetic line? This seems particularly troublesome in instances of adoption because the insistence on genetic tracing undercuts the entire purpose of adoption which is to create family and to continue a family into the future. Why bother to adopt if that child will not be viewed as a member of the family by future generations? So what is really being studied? Renee L. Dauven On 3/31/2012 11:41 AM, kaysfo@aol.com wrote: > > It wouldn't in a sense bother me either. The nasty surprise is in thinking that one has everything nailed down with a well -documented paper trail, and then finding out that a whole line of your family isn't your family. And where do you start to redo a whole line. Can you tell how far back the "non-parental episode" happened. > > If ggg-grandma had a child that did not belong to gg-grandpa, how could you tell if it was the butcher, the baker, or the candlestick maker?