After a rather heated "debate" the other night, and me not being here to argue further, I have to now post this to check and ask the following. Scenario I claim, my DIRECT family line, dating back to 1604, only requires the following people to be, A DIRECT FAMILY LINE. (Actual dates are not important, just the numbers of people in this case) The letter G, will be used to save me typing "Great" as will the family name of Smith be used for persec 1604 GGGGGGGGGG Grandad Smith??? 1634 GGGGGGGGG Grandad Smith 1664 GGGGGGGG Grandad Smith 1694 GGGGGGG Grandad smith 1724 GGGGGG Grandad Smith 1754 GGGGG Grandad Smith 1784 GGGG Grandad Smith 1814 GGG Grandad Smith 1844 GG Grandad Smith 1874 G Grandad Smith 1904 Grandad Smith 1934 Dad 1964 ME Now, in my actual case, there are 14 people in that line, but for ease of numbers and dates, I have rounded up for 30 years per parent. Also, given that a DIRECT family line is passed down from father to son, (ie the family name etc) I think, that from me up to my Great x 10 Grandfather, this is the correct DIRECT family line. I know that there are also wives of involved, and parents of the wives to be considered, but, the DIRECT family line is that of father to son. So I argue, that the DIRECT family line is as above, and not as the "Anthropology degree mouth" suggest, a DIRECT family line for me, involves over 2000 or 20000 people, I forget what he said as he got boring. Although, I personally think he is mixing his degree with one in Genealogy, which is more the family line thing rather than a degree about humanity, or am I reading the term Anthropology wrong too? Anyone who does not have an anthropology degree but a common sense brain care to explain what is what and who is correct?