Dear Listers, I've had reason to think about placing these thoughts on genealogy on the roots sites to which I subscribe, so if you see it more than once, please bear with me. I would like to give you something to think about in regard to your putting family genealogy materials together, especially in book form, as I see so much family data being passed back & forth on the roots sites. The aim has been to verify with proofs each generation when one researches your direct family lines. Sometimes it becomes an expensive & very time-consuming venture. When you put together only your direct line it's easier to quote the verifiable documents or include samples of all proofs for your own use. When you begin to work with siblings of your direct generation lines you, many times, glean good verifiable data, which allows you to place their names with your lineage on a positive note with proofs. Once you start to add their spouses, or beyond, their documentation should be added, or you should make a blanket explanation to note that additional information, not in your direct line, may need further documentation to verify it's authenticity when sharing it with others. There is a good reason to do so, especially if you are placing it in book form for others to read. The reason behind this is so your verified research does not become contaminated by errors found in sidelines, where information comes from others without the documents "quoted" in full. If you place this in a book and errors are found it places the entire work "as suspect material" for it's accuracy. One way that helps do this, that I've seen is=--- after each generation is recorded you list the proofs to back it up. One of the best genealogy books I've seen in the past 35 plus years is the Hanks Genealogy. This was done in that volume. I do not mean to speak negatively about materials offered by relatives or others who are trying to help or work with you, but they need to be working in the same manner as you or make certain to clarify what is backed with documentation & what is not. What one might do is to preface their work with a simple code, like (*) to show which names, dates & places have documentation at the very least. However, I prefer the Hanks method myself. I see so much passing back and forth on the roots site but never noting the documentation happens a great deal of the time. It's not that the info is necessarily wrong but the knowledge of its source is not noted. Please also remember to make certain to note who you have received info from where possible. This is important genealogically speaking, but also the polite thing to do. Regards, Ellen (ETHS) email: ellen@b-n-s.com Visit my web site: http://www.geocities.com/ellenj3