I have had a bit of trouble explaining this to others without getting into the science and then watching their eyes glaze over. So, I came up with this (using the KISS method): mtDNA goes self (male or female), mother, mother's mother, mother's mother's mother. . . yDNA goes self (male only), father, father's father, father's father's father. . . followed by some version of this: For patronymic [name follows father's name], patrolinial ["lineage" follows the male line] societies, which takes in a great number of European origin families, the surname is used for yDNA as it is assumed that the surname would have been passed down along with the yDNA. With the exception of adoptions and 'dangerous liaisons', that is probably pretty much true. The same can't be said for the mtDNA, because of the different origin of the DNA, and because of the faceless and nameless females in legal records. However, mtDNA is very good for tracking general human geographic origins. (If you want some mental exercise, beginning with yourself, follow your mother's female line back as far as you can. Not too easy, huh? Did you run out later than 1800? No surprise! It is interesting that when you ask someone about their mother's line, they usually begin talking about her father, not about her mother!) In a society where matronymic "bynames" occur, it may be more possible. For examples, in some of the Scandinavian countries, Spanish and Hispanic cultures and some Native American tribes the mother's name, surname, or clan is incorporated in the child's name. Personally, I think it is good for females to have, and have male relatives have, DNA tested, both y and mt. When you look at some of the results to date, you find that there's more hash out there than you would have guessed. Of course, this is 'just' biological inheritance we are talking about here, not social/cultural. It is *not* "family history" but "genetic history." Pat (in Tucson)