Dear Cathy, I wouldn't want you to have to proceed like a box turtle! I was working from 1734, not the 1777 figure, that gave me a couple more generations to work with. Even so, the line of my O'Neall inheritance includes but three females, who were 22, 26, and 30 respectively when they gave birth to the next in decent on my line. You shouldn't feel badly about having thrown us a bone. After all, we were looking for something to chew on. It was not you we were chewing, but the bone! This list is different. I'm in only two, so I would hardly qualify as an expert, but I can contribute but little to the other, for I went there for help. No on has offered any information in the state, GA where I pick up the line. After a respectful time, I queried my couple, and got a response from a close relative who was after essentially the same material I was after. We have much to share on other mutual lines, but we could grow old waiting for knowledge of this GA pair. Neither the cousin nor I have GA research experience. I count myself very lucky to be here! Warmly, Carl gee/whiz kid wrote: > DAD I will apoligize for my math AGAIN > but I can remember,,,,oh forget it > > ............ > > Alan you're right we could have up to 8 generations between us by > now.... > consideringi 1800s for a female to be 13 and not someones fiance' or > someone new bride she be considered a old maid or spinster > now I'LL go back to lurk mode > > Sorry for sticking my 2 cents in I forgot myself and what list I was > writing to > > Kathy ONEAL > > › º > °° °° > °° °° °° ° > >>))>}}°> ªª ° > °°° > Go in PEACE,,,, >>}>}}°> °° ° > >>}}>)°>