ROOTS, BRANCHES, TWIGS & LEAVES

[PhilGee]

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.

Why would he call it branches? It is about finding where he came from, geographically (his "roots"), by the only sensible means available - building a "tree" from the information he had or found.

 

[peter]

Why would he call it branches?

Because that's how family trees were drawn in those days - see comments from Bob, and examples online.

 

[PhilGee]

Because that's how family trees were drawn in those days - see comments from Bob, and examples online.

Read my post - don't skim.

 

[peter]

Read my post - don't skim.

Which post are you talking about? I was responding to the one line post I quoted - it's difficult to skim a one line post!

 

[Bob Spiers]

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?

Yes I agree with athNZ as it makes me think of how the American military relate to missiles that go off target and cause collateral (secondary) damage. Whilst I might use collateral in the adjective sense (secondary/subordinate) it is not a word that comes readily to mind in family history pursuit, and I would rather it stayed that way. Branches fill that role perfectly well, but the term 'Roots' and 'Root' need to be better defined.

 

[Bob Spiers]

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.

I think you relate to how YOU regard things, as in Ancestry in my main Tree, I am all three: Home Person, Tree owner and the Root person. Obviously when I manage a Tree for a family person (my daughter for instance) or for friends, then usually I am (though not necessarily always) the Tree owner and A.N. Other the Home Person - and usually (but again depending on circumstance) the Root Person. We all think and do things differently as the Forum clearly shows.

 

[PhilGee]

Which post are you talking about? I was responding to the one line post I quoted - it's difficult to skim a one line post!

Apparently not. As I said, the book was about determining his "roots" (where he came from geographically) and, for completeness, I added a comment on the mechanism through which the goal was achieved. This should have conveyed the message that calling the book "Branches" was not appropriate.

 

[Pauline]

Because that's how family trees were drawn in those days

The earliest known trees started with the earliest person at the bottom, and so yes, with these the descendants were shown on the branches of the tree spreading upwards from the bottom. There’s an example of one the front cover of the latest Genealogists’ Magazine.

But today, for us ordinary folk who don’t already have documented histories, the more usual practice is start with ourselves (or maybe another member of our family), and work backwards in time, which in a pictorial sense thus puts our ancestors on the branches of our tree. One me and my many ancestors, rather than the old practice of a tree showing one particular person and their many descendants.

 

[peter]

The earliest known trees started with the earliest person at the bottom, and so yes, with these the descendants were shown on the branches of the tree spreading upwards from the bottom. There’s an example of one the front cover of the latest Genealogists’ Magazine.

Thanks for pointing that out - I had to magnify it considerably, so wouldn't otherwise have noticed.

But today, for us ordinary folk who don’t already have documented histories, the more usual practice is start with ourselves (or maybe another member of our family), and work backwards in time, which in a pictorial sense thus puts our ancestors on the branches of our tree. One me and my many ancestors, rather than the old practice of a tree showing one particular person and their many descendants.

It just goes to show problematic the tree metaphor is.

If we can't use the word branch because it means different thing to different people, and we prefer not to use the term collateral lines (for whatever reason), perhaps cousin lines might suffice? After all the relatives on our collateral lines are all cousins (other than the first person, who is an aunt or uncle of some order).

 

[At home in NZ]

Playing devil's advocate here. Where are your own roots? Who do you consider to be your root person?

My roots are where my ancestors came from and if I had every one of my 10th great-grandfathers the answers would be quite varied I'm sure.

 

[Pauline]

perhaps cousin lines might suffice

I've been giving this some more thought, and I do use the word lines in this context. I might more commonly talk about sibling lines or relate it to a particular surname*, but cousin lines seems like a plausible option. Like others, I don't particularly like - or use - the term collateral lines.

* I might do this when I've done extended research into a family, which may go back earlier than the cousin(s) it relates to. Usually, when I display research of this kind on my website, I start with the earliest known person and show their descendants below them, generally only following down the male and illegitimate lines (i.e. those who share the same surname).

 

[PhilGee]

perhaps cousin lines might suffice?

That would fit well, since references to "blood relatives" in those lines (apart from direct ancestor siblings) uses the cousins/removed notation - nCxR (though I use xRnC for cousins of an ancestor and nCxR for descendants of my cousins).

 

[Bob Spiers]

My roots are where my ancestors came from and if I had every one of my 10th great-grandfathers the answers would be quite varied I'm sure.

I agree the difficulty in defining one's 'Roots' - even with Ancestry's ethnicity help - but using the term 'Root' (as in root person) illustrate the confusion between (ancestral) roots and the (descendant) root person.

I have already defined the root person in my own Ancestry Tree as myself. In other Trees usually the name of the person whose Tree I manage. At the end of the day it only matters in the way the information is used to define relationships.

In Tribal Pages (TP)when I pass on the access code to family members, when they first log in they are asked if they appear in the Tree and do they wish to select their name from a dropdown list. If they wish to do so (it is not mandatory) they locate their name and this allows TP to define relationships specific to themselves. If they decline TP allows relationships to be determined by manual enquiry. They merely select both parties, root and branch so to speak, and the relationship is calculated.

 

[Bob Spiers]

That would fit well, since references to "blood relatives" in those lines (apart from direct ancestor siblings) uses the cousins/removed notation - nCxR (though I use xRnC for cousins of an ancestor and nCxR for descendants of my cousins).

You are at it again Phil - what on earth is all that in plain English?

 

[peter]

though I use xRnC for cousins of an ancestor and nCxR for descendants of my cousins

That's a good idea.
.

 

[Pauline]

what on earth is all that in plain English?

nC is the degree of cousinship, and xR indicates how many times removed, and usually we might talk about a person who is 1C2R - a first cousin twice removed. Phil is saying that he switches the order to distinguish between the cousin of an ancestor and the descendant of a cousin so 2R1C - twice removed first cousin.

 

[PhilGee]

Oops, done it again! Assuming everyone knew the C/R mechanism for identifying the position of "cousins" in the tree!

I add a note to my DNA matches with the C/R reference followed by the nearest common ancestors and the name of their child at the top of the branch leading to the match; for example - 1R2C: John Jones=Elizabeth Davies via Evan Jones would be used for a second cousin of my mother (if I had such a match).

 

[Bob Spiers]

Oops, done it again! Assuming everyone knew the C/R mechanism for identifying the position of "cousins" in the tree!

It's not NOT understanding Phil - I was probable conversant with what you refer to as C/R mechanism (and what is mechanical about Cousin/Removed or Removed/Cousin) when Adam was a boy (a little exaggeration here as he was probably a grown man). It really boils down to reading something in school text book short form, without any grown up explanation, and assuming (yes you were right there) all will relate to algebraic verbiage. I expect such in 'cloak and dagger' fiction - the Da Vinci Code springs to mind - but I much prefer for people to explain (much as Pauline did) what they mean in plain words.

I appreciate it takes longer and I am occasionally guilty myself of using technical short forms. But then I have a wife who tells me to explain why her Tablet is not functioning as it should, without blinding her with science! No C/R or any other mechanisms work with her.