I agree with Margaret. Primary = hard evidence--a record (and I'm not so sure I consider all bible records primary!) Secondary = soft evidence--what somewhat else claimed. I have a lot of both in my files. :) Often we have to start with secondary/soft evidence--those family histories that have been handed down, usually orally, which you can count on to have errors. Then we need the primary records to support or refute them. Yet Paul is of course right when he says we use what we have--my fallback "proof" (I don't call it that!) is simple logic of place, time, name patterns, etc. I've got many links I'm sure are "right" but they're by no means supported with evidence of any sort beyond logical deduction. Sometimes it's all we have. This works fine with an unusual name like Calthorpe--two in one county? Bound to be related! Roughly the same age? Brothers or cousins. But it doesn't work for Smith, Jones, Mason, Walker....six in one county? Don't count on ANY relationships! The important thing here is to always include in your notes (especially if you're going to publish it anywhere including the web) a descritption of the quality of your evidence. My gedcoms often include the phrase, "not a shred of evidence--a guess." :) Karen Dale