Thanks for the dozens of splendid comments about evidence sent to me, all of you. I found in almost everyone on the list agreement that labels serve no useful purpose and should be ignored, except perhaps by newcomers (and even they learn nothing from such words as primary, indirect, preponderance, and the like). I also fully agree that all researchers should examine EVERY source (clear or equivocal, reliable or not so much so) that in any way whatever tends to prove any measure of kinship or lineage and should ignore all labels applied by anyone. Almost all of you agreed that any single bit of evidence might be called by several of the catch-words, yet nothing is learned by using those descriptions. One of you commented that describing some source as secondary tells us NOTHING except that such evidence may not be as reliable as some other source; how true that is !!! In conclusion, you seem universally in agreement that we MUST seek to discern whether the author or creator of every bit of evidence, now or in the past, had good reason to know and to be honest in stating the facts or creating the memento or writing; that all evidence may be reliable as to some facts, yet unreliable as to other facts; that we all should seek every bit of evidence that tends to prove kinship; and that conflicting facts must be examined and weighed in light of human experience and good genealogical practice, and not because someone else has called such evidentiary fact by some of the many labels. Thanks for the many responses. Paul