Donna, One time I did this at a temporary measure. I had 5 Gwin families, who I was sure were all related, but didn't know how. The earliest ancestors in each group were of an age where they could be siblings - but they could just as easily be cousins, and in one case, 2 of them might be 1 person. It was a pain having them all unlinked; it was easier to find them if they were linked somehow. So I created an "father" called "Gwins of Tippecanoe co, Indiana" and made him the "father" of each of the earliest ancestors of my 5 groups (so it appeared that he had 5 children). I wrote notes in the "father"'s entry about what I was doing and how they weren't really siblings as far as I knew.
Within about a year, I had identified 4 of the 5 groups through land records and wills, and was able to link them correctly (turns out 4 of them WERE siblings, but I'm still not sure about the 5th one). I think temporarily linking them to a common "ancestor" made my research a little easier and allowed me to see parallels and similarities I might not have noticed if they were 5 separate trees floating around in my database. Just my 2 cents, Holly To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
