ROOTS, BRANCHES, TWIGS & LEAVES

[PhilGee]

Bob, (calm down and take a deep breath - or 6).

The confusion is the use of root and roots - the "root person" (as Pauline said) is the person from whom the tree is derived, "the roots" is a redundant and confusing term used to describe the direct ancestors of the root person, as they identify where you came from ("Your roots are in Yorkshire"). The root person and direct ancestors are all numbered logically (with natural numbers* in binary groups) and trees grow up from the root person through the latter. To me, this suggests that "conventional" trees started as just the root person and direct ancestors and have morphed into the common tree seen today (speculation; as I have not attempted any research).

But, there is something missing:- where is the trunk? Should the paternal line have that designation, as it mostly has a consistent surname (within similar sounding variants)? That would leave other direct ancestor lines as branches and all other lines as twigs!!! (Note: I'm just muddying the water! )

* Often referred to as "positive integers"

 

[peter]

this suggests that "conventional" trees started as just the root person and direct ancestors and have morphed into the common tree seen today

Originally it wasn't about finding out who your ancestors were, it was about demonstrating one's descent from a particular individual, and there was no reason to include any other ancestral lines. A lot of the early 'genealogies' were wrong, but as long as people got the answer they wanted they were happy.

These days it's just a hobby, but one that some of us take very seriously.

 

[Katie Bee]

Stalactite from Stalagmites...The mites go up and the 'tites come down)

I learned stalactites cling to the ceiling; stalagmites grow from the ground.
But I think I like your version better, Bob

 

[Pauline]

But all that really matters is that we mean the same thing when we talk roots and branches

That, however, seems to be exactly where people hold differing views. To me the branches spread upwards from the root (me), while to you the branches spread down from the roots (your ancestors).

When I started out in family history, paper tree templates on which to pen in the details of your ancestors were common and many were designed like conventional trees, with space for your own name at the bottom, and branches spreading upwards and splitting into two for each new generation. While I have long since gone computerised, I still think of a family tree in the same basic terms.

 

[peter]

But all that really matters is that we mean the same thing when we talk roots and branches

That, however, seems to be exactly where people hold differing views.

Precisely, which is why I wrote about it in the newsletter.

 

[Margery]

I learned stalactites cling to the ceiling;

And they have to hang on "tite"!

 

[Bob Spiers]

Bob, (calm down and take a deep breath - or 6).

Have no fear on that count Phil, it will take a deal more than 'Family Tree' definitions to cause anxiety ...providing I keep taking the tablets of course.

But, there is something missing:- where is the trunk?

Yes I too was going to mention the 'Trunk' even if only to align a conventional Family Tree to the arboreal real thing. I presented my 94 year old female cousin (once removed) a while before the Pandemic took hold with a framed Family Tree (In the form of a Tree: Roots, Trunk, Branches and foliage). She was shown as the root person, her parents as part of the Trunk and Ancestors depicted within the branches and foliage. She had been interested in her family origins all her life and on my yearly visits spent ages talking about her family branch (her mother and my grandmother were sisters). I could never have chosen anything better as a present for her 90th birthday, and it has pride of place on her mantle shelf.

The point being it was a Family Tree, shown as a conventional Tree and something she readily understood. She would have understood about 'roots' and even she as root person, but presented in the form of a Tree, it needed no further explanations or root/roots confusion.

 

[Susan48]

Ancestry family trees have a "Home person" which perhaps avoids some of the confusion.

 

[Pauline]

Precisely, which is why I wrote about it in the newsletter.

To highlight the potential for confusion, or in the hope that some will change the terminology they currently use?

 

[Bob Spiers]

That, however, seems to be exactly where people hold differing views. To me the branches spread upwards from the root (me), while to you the branches spread down from the roots (your ancestors).

When I started out in family history, paper tree templates on which to pen in the details of your ancestors were common and many were designed like conventional trees, with space for your own name at the bottom, and branches spreading upwards and splitting into two for each new generation. While I have long since gone computerised, I still think of a family tree in the same basic terms.

I could have responded to your post with an AGREE icon, but it would not have done justice to an agreement that branches do indeed spread upwards from the roots (I would add from the trunk) and branches then (by my reckoning) develop as twigs and leaves .

I also agree that paper tree templates always took the form of a conventional Tree with space for you to fill in your name and progress the Tree from your own family Knowledge and research. I too see things this way and remains the way I present Trees to family members.

I acknowledge the point Peter makes about 'upside down Trees' even though artificially required in order to conform to the root person developing roots. I just do not like the concept.

 

[peter]

To highlight the potential for confusion, or in the hope that some will change the terminology they currently use?

Both questions are answered in the article that started this discussion.

 

[peter]

I acknowledge the point Peter makes about 'upside down Trees' even though artificially required in order to conform to the root person developing roots. I just do not like the concept.

Unfortunately the vision of a family tree got confused when Alex Haley wrote Roots - if only he had called it Branches things would be so much simpler.

 

[Pauline]

Both questions are answered in the article that started this discussion.

Yes and no. You say "I’m not suggesting that you must change the way you use the word branch", but that doesn't mean you are not hoping they will. You also say "it can be confusing because some people talk about branches when they clearly mean roots", but that implies your use of the words branches and roots is the correct one, rather than just just different. Until you raised it in the newsletter, I had never come across anyone using the term roots for branches in the way that you apparently do.

I have also never used the term roots to refer to individual ancestors, nor - until now - have I come across others doing so. I might say that I have roots in Wiltshire but that's a bit different.

 

[peter]

Yes and no. You say "I’m not suggesting that you must change the way you use the word branch", but that doesn't mean you are not hoping they will.

Of course it would be simpler if we had a common terminology, but it doesn't make any difference to me how they pronounce tomato or potato just so long as they know what I'm talking about when I say it.

Until you raised it in the newsletter, I had never come across anyone using the term roots for branches in the way that you apparently do.

Roots was published in 1976. What did you think it was about?

I have also never used the term roots to refer to individual ancestors, nor - until now - have I come across others doing so. I might say that I have roots in Wiltshire but that's a bit different.

I've never referred to individual ancestors as roots, if I use the term at all - which I rarely do - I use it as a synonym for ancestral lines. What do you mean when you say you have roots in Wiltshire? Do you mean you have branches there?

 

[peter]

Is the average family historian familiar with the term collateral lines, which is the technical term for what I colloquially call branches. And if not, what do they call them?

 

[At home in NZ]

Ancestry family trees have a "Home person" which perhaps avoids some of the confusion.

But, Ancestry advises the Home person should be yourself, the tree owner, which is what I have done and I do not consider myself to be the Root person.

 

[Pauline]

What do you mean when you say you have roots in Wiltshire? Do you mean you have branches there?

I think there’s a danger of this discussion becoming a bit pointless. You’ve alerted us to what you mean when you talk about roots and branches, while I - and some others - have explained our terminology. Yes, there could be some potential for confusion, but mostly it will be apparent from the context what people are referring to.

And as regards your latest question, I am familiar with the term collateral lines (what I sometimes refer to as side shoots), though I may not be considered average.

 

[At home in NZ]

Is the average family historian familiar with the term collateral lines, which is the technical term for what I colloquially call branches. And if not, what do they call them?

In my mind I call them branches off the direct line. The word collateral always makes me think of collateral damage.
However, this makes sense in terms of family history:
Antonyms & Near Antonyms for collateral. unassociated, unconnected, unrelated.

 

[peter]

mostly it will be apparent from the context what people are referring to

Mostly isn't good enough for me, whether I'm writing in my newsletter or sending individual emails.

I am familiar with the term collateral lines

I'm sure all researchers with your level of experience are familiar with the term (though some may not be comfortable with using it). But is it a term that the average researcher will understand? It's certainly not a term I'd use when talking to someone who wasn't a family historian, and I use it sparingly in correspondence with family historians.

what I sometimes refer to as side shoots

As I understand it, a side shoot is to a plant what a branch is to a tree - so it works well for me.

 

[Pauline]

The word collateral always makes me think of collateral damage.

My predictive text had the same thought!