First-again-many thanks to each of you who replied; your thoughts have been very helpful. I have carefully reviewed the competing published lineages and have concluded that although both make some good points, neither has emerged as the clear winner. Both cite numerous original documents, but unfortunately both suffer from gaps in documentation for key connections. All the publications date from the 1950s, and I don't believe any of this would pass muster in today's genealogical journals. A lot of the "evidence" rests on people's names being the same, and one author even says that the "long arm of coincidence" couldn't possibly be so long as to explain away his conclusions. Well, I'm not so sure. What I've therefore decided to do is to stay with the ancestors I've already entered for my problem ancestor, adding to each of his ancestors the same undated Note tag that states briefly that this undocumented lineage was inherited and is apparently based on such-and-such book, and that a competing lineage is described in such and such articles, copies of which will be found in my paper files. I'll probably be adding other tags for my own research findings for each person in the future. This way, all FGS, ID, and journal reports on gggg-grandfather John or any of his forebears can include the informative warning, and other researchers using my materials (assuming there every are any!) can get the details from my paper files. The warning note itself will be very obvious in the Details screen for each person. In short, I've elected not to enter, person by person, all the people in the more recently discovered lineage in a parallel work-around line, despite the interesting suggestions for ways to do that, because it would be a lot of very tedious work devoted to info I don't really believe is worth that much trouble. If someday I do see that the competing lineage has been proven correct after all, I'll just sigh, delete the wrong people, and enter the new ones. Cheers, Barbara