This thread has covered a lot of ideas ranging from "I never change the spelling of a name from what I find. I don't believe in rewriting history." to "use the most-common variant", to "use the earliest usage." I agree that there is no one right way to record surnames, but I do feel rather strongly that whatever we do, we should try not to propagate the problems that arise in trying to search our family history on to the generations that follow. Certainly we must document the name changes in notes as virtually everyone has suggested, but to continue to use the variants in the primary surname fields of our databases and other records without some consideration for how the records sort in lists, indexes, and reports, or how they are located in search engines will be doing a huge disservice to our descendants. It is better to rewrite history than it is to cause history to be lost. One methodology that has not been mentioned so far is the use of soundex codes. Most genealogy programs worth their salt provide the ability to search using soundex. PAF, for example, provides a soundex code calculator in which you can enter a name and see the resulting soundex code. The PAF search function allows the use of "Sounds like" when searching on the name field. Perhaps the most effective way to record variant surnames is to use the most-common variant as the primary surname but always verify that the differing variants generate the exact same soundex code so that they will turn up in searches that use the soundex (sounds like) method. In any case, when you are faced with variant spellings, it should be standard practice to check the soundex codes for each variant and be cognizant of the differences so that you will know when to force soundex searching and know which variants may be included and which ones will not be included. With that said, I propose that an effective method for entering a surname that has variants might be: /WILBRAHAM (WILBRAM)/ where Wilbraham is the most commonly used name but Wilbram is this particular individual's name. The other variants, Wilbourne, Wilburn, Wilborn, etc. would be used inside the parentheses when they apply. When the individual actually was known by Wilbraham, no variant inside parentheses is necessary. This methodology will cause all the individual records for that line to sort together in lists, indexes and reports. The actual variant is clearly visible when looking at any lists, indexes, or reports. Future family history searchers will not be confounded by the haphazard use of variant spellings, and using "sounds like" in the selection function in PAF will turn up all variants when generating reports, GEDCOM files, and Web sites. The soundex code for all of the variants in this example is W416. The soundex code is not without problems. If name variations start with different letters, then it gets more interesting. But most of these challenges can be solved by using a search criteria with boolean logic such as "sounds like Avery" OR "sounds like Havery". Whatever we decide to do about variant names, it is a good idea to consider how we can make the job of the genealogists of the future easier than ours. Richard Rands SV-CGG At 11:23 PM 6/26/2005 +0100, bladon wrote: >Hello > >What is the convention for names which have many variants? > >For example, I have one family name which uses the following variants >within the same generations (WILBRAHAM, WILBRAM, WILBOURNE, WILBURN, >WILBORN etc) > >One ancestor was baptised as WILBOURNE, then was called WILBRAHAM on his >marriage. His children were a mixture of WILBOURNE and WILBRAHAM on >baptism, and on some census were called WILBRAHAM and on others >WILBOURNE. (I've done extensive research and they are definitely the same >people). > >The confusion between the names has led to duplication in ordinance work, >and I am not sure how to deal with future submissions or how to record >this family on PAF. (Do I choose one main name to use then make a note >that they have also been recorded under different variants?) > >Any help appreciated. > >Valerie > > >==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >PAF-5-USERS Mailing List Archives >http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/PAF-5-USERS/