Numbering Systems in Genealogy By Richard A. Pence 

[This material based on a presentation made to the National 
Genealogical Society's Computer Interest Group, July, 1986. 
Revised, December, 1987, for presentation to the Seattle 
Genealogical Society's Computer Interest Group. Additional 
revisions, April 1988, April 1990, February 1991, and November 
1993. 

[A good source of additional information on numbering systems is 
an article by Donn Devine in Ancestry Newsletter (Vol. 4, No. 1, 
Jan-Feb, 1986) entitled "How to Number People in Pedigrees and 
Genealogies." This summary of numbering systems used in genealogy 
is based in part from that article. Ancestry Newsletter is 
published by Ancestry, P.O. Box 476, Salt Lake City, UT 84110. 
Toll-free order number is 1-800-531-1790. A more recent article 
by Joan Ferris Curran gives excellent descriptions of the 
"Register" and "Record" systems but gives scant attention to 
other systems (in the case of the "Henry" system, the article is 
inaccurate). See "Numbering Your Genealogy: Sound and Simple 
Systems," National Genealogical Society Quarterly, Vol. 79, No. 
3, September 1991, page 183. 

[Richard A. Pence, 3211 Adams Court, Fairfax, Virginia, is a 
former editor of the National Genealogical Society Computer 
Interest Group newsletter (the NGS/CIG DIGEST), was the founding 
system operator of the NGS Bulletin Board System and is a current 
co-sysop, is co-moderator of the National Genealogy Conference 
(GENEALOGY) and the GENSOFT (genealogical software) conference on 
the FidoNet amateur BBS network. He was co-author with Paul 
Anderick of the first edition Computer Genealogy (Ancestry, Inc., 
Salt Lake City, 1985) and editor of the revised edition (1991) of 
the book. He has been a frequent contributor to the quarterly 
Genealogical Computing(Ancestry, Inc.) and a contributor to the 
NGS Quarterly. He was editor in 1984 of the widely aclaimed The 
Next Greatest Thing, a pictorial history of rural electrification 
in the United States.] 
                                                                  

ANCESTOR NUMBERING SYSTEMS 

SOSA-STRADONITZ SYSTEM OR AHNENTAFEL 

The normal - and extremely easy and effective - method of 
numbering your ancestors is to assign yourself (or child) the 
number 1. If you are No. 1, then your father is No. 2, your 
mother No. 3, your paternal grandfather No. 4, etc. In this 
system, a person's father's number is always twice the person's 
number and his or her mother's number is twice plus one. This 
method of numbering one's ancestors is used worldwide and is 
called the Sosa-Stradonitz System for the Spanish genealogist 
Jerome de Sosa who first used it in 1676 and for Stephan Kekule 
von Stradonitz who popularized it in his 1896 Ahnentafel Atlas. 
It is also sometimes called the "Ahnentafel Numbering System," 
after the book. (In popular usage today, an ahnentafel is a 
listing rather than a chart of ancestors.) 

If you want to maintain information on collateral relatives in 
your database, you can get a unique identification number for any 
such relative in any line of descent by using the Sosa-Stradonitz 
number of the common ancestor, followed by a decimal point and an 
expansible descent number based on the Modified Henry System (see 
COMBINED NUMBERING SYSTEMS later). 

Advantages and Disadvantages 

Whether you use a computer or not, there is really no substitute 
for the ahnentafel numbering system. It is widely accepted and 
understood - so widely accepted that it is almost universally 
used. It also has the virtue of being mathematically uniform and, 
therefore, is made-to-order for computer use. A computer can be 
easily programmed to find parents, grandparents, great 
grandparents, etc., by use of the prevailing rule of the 
ahnentafel: The father's number is always twice as large as the 
child's and the mother's is one greater than that. That one fact 
makes tracing descent back or down a snap for a computer. It also 
makes it possible to program a computer to print charts for any 
person in the genealogical data base and use a different 
numbering sequence each time. For instance, you might want to 
print out a set of ancestor charts for someone else using your 
grandfather as the subject (No. 1). The subsequent numbering of 
and within the charts can be easily accomplished. 

The ahnentafel system allows almost limitless additions. However, 
two problems can arise: 

(1) The same person can pop into your family tree a second time, 
thus requiring two different records and two different numbers; 
the thing to watch for here is to make certain that both records 
contain the (same) correct information. A National Genealogical 
Society Computer Interest Group  DIGEST reader noted that the 
Stradonitz system "allows extension ad infinitum, but computer 
problems arise when two different lines lead to the same person 
and slavish adherence would produce duplicate data under 
different numbers, or varying data if the research is done twice 
from different sources and the genealogist fails to go back to 
the primary source...." 

(2) The same arithmetic progression that makes the ahnentafel 
wonderful for keeping track of ancestors could become a problem 
if you are fortunate to trace back many generations. The space 
allowed for the ahnentafel number in your database could tax a 
small computer. However, with six digits you can handle 19 
generations of ancestors, so as a practical matter most of us 
don't have to worry. On the other hand, a random-access database 
which relies on there being a record for each individual in an 
ahnentafel would fill up a disk in just five generations - and 
half those records might be blanks. (This can be programmed 
around with a little foresight.) 

                          DESCENDANT NUMBERING SYSTEMS 

THE REGISTER SYSTEM 

The progenitor or other individual is given the number 1. Each 
child is then numbered in order with lower-case Roman numerals 
(i, ii, iii, iv, v, etc.) and those whose lines are carried on 
are also given an Arabic number. For instance, No. 1 may have had 
seven children (i through vii), but only one of these had 
descendants, say iv. No. iv is then also given the Arabic number 
2 and his children, in turn, are numbered from i on, with, 
perhaps, Nos. i, iv and vi given the additional identification of 
3, 4 and 5. [Advantages and disadvantages of the Register System 
are discussed with those of the RECORD or MODIFIED REGISTER 
SYSTEM in the next section.] 

Register System Example 

                           Descendants of Henry Pence 
         Shenandoah (Page) County, Virginia and Champaign County, 
Ohio 

1. Henry Pence, born about 1740 probably Germany; died 1824 
Champaign County, OH; married c1765 Mary Magdaline Blimly. 
Children: 

         i George born 16 August 1766 Frederick County, VA; 
married Mary Mauck 
           9 November 1790 Shenandoah County; died 1810 
Shenandoah County. No 
           further information on descendants.  
  2.    ii Jacob.  
  3.   iii Henry. 
  4.    iv Abraham.  
  5.     v Magdaline, born 31 January 1771 Frederick County, VA; 
possibly dead 
           by father's will 1820; no other information.  
        vi Susannah, born 4 July 1772 Frederick County, VA; 
married (1) 
           Benjamin Maggert 6 May 1794 Shenandoah County, (2) 
Thomas Jenkins; 
           died 21 May 1853 Champaign County, OH.  
  6.   vii John.  
      viii Barbara, born 2 November 1775 Shenandoah County, VA; 
married (1) 
           _____ Rosenberger, (2) John Stewart 9 October 1806 
Champaign County, 
           OH; died before 1820.  
  7.    ix David.  
  8.     x Joseph.  
  9.    xi Samuel.  
       xii Anna, born 10 October 1781 Shenandoah County, VA; 
married John 
           Norman [Newman] 11 February 1800 Shenandoah County; 
died after 1848 
           probably Montgomery County, IN.  
 10.  xiii Isaac.  
 11.   xiv Elizabeth, born 22 June 1786 Shenandoah County, VA; 
married John 
           Steinberger [son John]; died 14 April 1854 Champaign 
County, OH.  
 12.    xv Benjamin.  
       xvi Mary, born 9 June 1789 Shenandoah County, VA; married 
William Runkle 
           in Champaign County, OH; went to IL.  
 13.  xvii Reuben. 

                               Second Generation                            

2. Jacob Pence (Henry-1), born 15 September 1767 Frederick 
County, VA; died 12 June 1828 Champaign County, OH; married Maria 
(Mary) Coffman 7 June 1802 Shenandoah County. Children 
[apparently several of the nine credited to them died young]: 

         i Katherine, died before 1820 OH; married Michael Kite 
c1819 OH.  
        ii Elizabeth (Lydia), born 1804 Shenandoah County, VA; 
died 12 March 
           1834 Champaign County, OH; married David Steinberger 
28 January 1822 
           Bartholomew County, IN.  
       iii Anna, born 1807 Shenandoah County, VA; died after 1881 
Clark County, 
           OH; married (1) Edward Wallis 1 January 1824 Champaign 
County, OH, 
           (2) Gabriel Albin 12 June 1846 Clark County.  
        iv Julia, born 11 April 1809 Champaign County, OH; died 3 
May 1816 
           Champaign County.  
         v Lucinda, born 1810 Champaign County, OH; died - 
February 1860 
           Champaign County; married Runyon L. Northcutt 4 March 
1830 Champaign 
           County.  
 14.    vi Jacob.  

4. Henry Pence (Henry-1), born 4 September 1768 Frederick County, 
VA; died 11August 1844 Champaign County, OH; married (1) 
Elizabeth Koontz 2 January 1788 Shenandoah County, (2) Eve Snider 
5 July 1803 Shenandoah County. Children, first two by first wife, 
rest probably by second [may not be in proper order; also note 
relatively late dates of birth for last two]: 

               ***** Children for Numbers 4 through 12 here ***** 

13. Reuben Pence (Henry-1), born 28 June 1791 Shenandoah County, 
VA; died 1 October 1840 Miami County, OH; married Anne Cowick 27 
August 1811 Champaign County, OH; to Miami County in 1821. 
Children: 

         i Ocey, born 16 February 1812 Champaign County, OH; died 
9 June 1844 
           Miami County, OH; married Jabez Lucas 6 October 1827 
Shelby County, 
           OH.  
        ii Phoebe, born 25 May 1814 Champaign County, OH; died 21 
January 1843 
           OH.  
       iii Mary, born 23 January 1816 Champaign County, OH; died 
18 June 1837. 
        iv Anna Helen, born 27 September 1818 Champaign County, 
OH; died 9 
           October 1834.  
         v Rhoda Jane, born 28 June 1819 Champaign County, OH; 
married Thomas 
           McPherson 21 February 1847 Miami County, OH.  
  ??.   vi William Lossen Pence (Reuben-2, Henry-1), born 7 April 
1821 
           Champaign County, OH; died 3 March 1882 Miami County, 
OH; married 
           (1) Harriet Rudy 11 May 1848 Miami County, (2) Barbara 
Rudy 9 
           October 1851 Miami County. Six children.  

                                Third Generation 

14. Jacob Pence (Henry-1), born 10 October 1812 Champaign County, 
OH; died 3 April 1898 Champaign County; married Sarah Dugan 20 
September 1833 Clark County, OH. [Eleven Children.] 

             ***** Other members of the third generation here 
***** 

??. William Lossen Pence (Reuben-2, Henry-1), born 7 April 1821 
Champaign County, OH; died 3 March 1882 Miami County, OH; married 
(1) Harriet Rudy 11 May 1848 Miami County, (2) Barbara Rudy 9 
October 1851 Miami Co. [Six children.] 

(NOTE: William Lossen's number would depend on how many 
additional lines between him and No. 14 are carried down.) 


THE RECORD SYSTEM OR MODIFIED REGISTER SYSTEM 

This system varies from the Register System in that each 
individual is given a number regardless of whether the line is 
subsequently carried on. A plus mark prior to the number is used 
to indicate if the line is later carried on. This is the system 
used by the National Genealogical Society Quarterly.  

Record System Example 

                           Descendants of Henry Pence 

1. Henry Pence, born about 1740 probably Germany; died 1824 
Champaign County, OH; married c1765 Mary Magdaline Blimly. He was 
granted 474 acres on the Hawksbill Creek in Frederick County 
[later Shenandoah County, now Page County] on 30 March 1770. 
Moved to Mad River Township, Champaign County in 1805. All of the 
following children were likely born on the Hawksbill Creek near 
Stanley, VA, now Page County. It was Frederick County until 1772 
and then became Shenandoah County and was so for most of the time 
these Pences were there. Page County was created in 1832. 
Children: 

  2.     i George born 16 August 1766 Frederick County, VA; 
married Mary Mauck 
           [daughter Daniel] 9 November 1790 Shenandoah County; 
died 1810 
           Shenandoah County.  + 3.    ii Jacob. + 4.   iii 
Henry.  + 5.    iv Abraham. 
   6.     v Magdaline, born 31 January 1771 Shenandoah County VA; 
possibly dead 
           by father's will 1820; no other information.  
   7.    vi Susannah, born 4 July 1772 Shenandoah County, VA; 
married (1) 
           Benjamin Maggert 6 May 1794 Shenandoah County, (2) 
Thomas Jenkins; 
           died 21 May 1853 Champaign County, OH.  + 8.   vii 
John.  
   9.  viii Barbara, born 2 November 1775 Shenandoah County, VA; 
married (1) 
           _____ Rosenberger, (2) John Stewart 9 October 1806 
Champaign County, 
           OH; died before 1820.  +10.    ix David. +11.     x 
Joseph.  +12.    xi Samuel. 
  13.   xii Anna, born 10 October 1781 Shenandoah County, VA; 
married John 
           Norman [Newman] 11 February 1800 Shenandoah County; 
died after 1848 
           probably Montgomery County, IN.  +14.  xiii Isaac.  
  15.   xiv Elizabeth, born 22 June 1786 Shenandoah County, VA; 
married John 
           Steinberger [son John]; died 14 April 1854 Champaign 
County, OH.  +16.    xv Benjamin.  
  17.   xvi Mary, born 9 June 1789 Shenandoah County, VA; married 
William Runkle 
           in Champaign County, OH; went to IL.  +18.  xvii 
Reuben.  

                               Second Generation 

3. Jacob Pence (Henry-1), born 15 September 1767 probably 
Frederick County, VA; died 12 June 1828 Champaign County, OH; 
married Maria (Mary) Coffman 7 June 1802 Shenandoah County. 
Children [apparently several of the nine credited to them died 
young]: 

 19.     i Katherine, died before 1820 OH; married Michael Kite 
c1819 OH. 
 20.    ii Elizabeth (Lydia), born 1804 Shenandoah County, VA; 
died 12 March 
           1834 Champaign County, OH; married David Steinberger 
28 January 1822 
           Bartholomew County, IN.  
 21.   iii Anna, born 1807 Shenandoah County, VA; died after 1881 
Clark County, 
           OH; married (1) Edward Wallis 1 January 1824 Champaign 
County, OH, 
           (2) Gabriel Albin 12 June 1846 Clark County.  
 22.    iv Julia, born 11 April 1809 Champaign County, OH; died 3 
May 1816 
           Champaign County.  
 23.     v Lucinda, born 1810 Champaign County, OH; died - 
February 1860 
           Champaign County; married Runyon L. Northcutt 4 March 
1830 Champaign 
           County.  +24.    vi Jacob.  

4. Henry Pence (Henry-1), born 4 September 1768 Frederick County, 
VA; died 11 August 1844 Champaign County, OH; married (1) 
Elizabeth Koontz 2 January 1788 Shenandoah County, (2) Eve Snider 
5 July 1803 Shenandoah County.  

                *** Descendants of Numbers 4 through 17 here *** 

18. Reuben Pence (Henry-1), born 28 June 1791 Shenandoah County, 
VA; died 1 October 1840 Miami County, OH; married Anne Cowick 27 
August 1811 Champaign County, OH; to Miami County in 1821. 
Children: 

 101.    i Ocey, born 16 February 1812 Champaign County, OH; died 
9 June 1844 
           Miami County, OH; married Jabez Lucas 6 October 1827 
Shelby County, 
           OH.  
 102.   ii Phoebe, born 25 May 1814 Champaign County, OH; died 21 
January 1843 
           OH.  
 103.  iii Mary, born 23 January 1816 Champaign County, OH; died 
18 June 1837. 
 104.   iv Anna Helen, born 27 September 1818 Champaign County, 
OH; died 9 
           October 1834.  
 105.    v Rhoda Jane, born 28 June 1819 Champaign County, OH; 
married Thomas 
           McPherson 21 February 1847 Miami County, OH.  
 106.   vi William Lossen, born 7 April 1821 Champaign County, 
OH; died 3 March 
           1882 Miami County, OH; married (1) Harriet Rudy 11 May 
1848 Miami 
           County, (2) Barbara Rudy 9 October 1851 Miami County. 
Six children.  

                                Third Generation 

24. Jacob Pence (Jacob-2, Henry-1), born 10 October 1812 
Champaign County, OH; died 3 April 1898 Champaign County; married 
Sarah Dugan 20 September 1833 Clark County, OH. [Eleven children] 

             ***** Other members of the third generation here 
***** 

106. William Lossen Pence (Reuben-2, Henry-1), born 7 April 1821 
Champaign County, OH; died 3 March 1882 Miami County, OH; married 
(1) Harriet Rudy 11 May 1848 Miami County, (2) Barbara Rudy 9 
October 1851 Miami County. [Six children] 


Advantages/Disadvantages of the Register/Record Systems 

The main advantages of these two are familiarity and acceptance. 
As one letter received by the NGS/CIG DIGEST pointed out: 
"Genealogy has been around, as we all know, far longer than 
computers. For computer users to try and tell genealogists how to 
present their work is a case of the tail wagging the dog. This is 
not to suggest computer methods should not be used, but rather 
that they must result in a product acceptable to genealogists. 
Unfortunately, none of the numerous suggestions I have so far 
seen accepts that conclusion." This writer went on to suggest 
that printed genealogies must be "in the Register form or risk 
denigration." 

A major disadvantage - at least in the eyes of many - is the 
relative complexity of the system. A particular fault (more 
prominent in the Register System than the Record System) is that 
no "room" is left for newly discovered descendants. As one DIGEST 
reader put it, "The Register system is a strong deterrent to 
anyone who has additions or corrections to make to previously 
published work. Suppose that my great-grandfather wrote a family 
history and now I would like to extend some lines that he had 
lost touch with or simply ignored. Why can't I just write an 
addition to his work with a numbering system that simply hooks 
onto the 'dead ends' of his?" 

As for using these systems for computer record-keeping, George 
Ely Russell, former editor of the NGS Quarterly, points out: 
"This type of numbering system 'works' only with final published 
genealogies. For obvious reasons it can not be applied to works-
in-progress, data management projects in which children are being 
added to the database as research progresses. You should 
distinguish between genealogies being prepared for publication 
(in which a word-processing program works best, as you note in 
your article), and genealogies being compiled (i.e., the data-
collection phase). Most of the genealogy software programs now on 
the market provide for automatic assignment of a unique code 
number to each individual and for linking parents to children and 
husbands to wives. A 'logical system' for assigning these code 
numbers seems unnecessary. The computer doesn't care what the 
number is, as long as it is unique to one individual. And the so-
called 'Register system' of numbering should not be applied, was 
never intended for data management." 

A word of caution and advice: If you are going to publish 
computer-stored material in the Register or Record format, DON'T 
begin to add the numbers until you are absolutely ready to go to 
press. One simple addition early on can throw all your previous 
numbers out the window, cause considerable confusion and open the 
way to errors. Another suggestion might be to print out your 
records in the order you will be adding the record numbers and 
pencil in the numbers. Experience has taught me that adding them 
on a computer monitor requires constant backtracking to recheck 
which number you are on. 

THE HENRY SYSTEM 

The Henry System is named after Reginald Buchanan Henry, who used 
it in his "Genealogies of the Families of the Presidents" in 
1935. In this system, the progenitor or other individual is 
assigned the number 1 (or sometimes another number or letter). 
His oldest child becomes 11, his next child is 12. The oldest 
child of number 11 is No. 111, the next 112, etc. In the Henry 
system, when there are more than nine children, X is used for the 
10th child, A is used for the 11th child, B is used for the 12th 
child, etc. 

Henry System Example 

                           Descendants of Henry Pence 

6 Henry Pence b c1740 probably Germany; d 1824 Champaign Co OH; m 
c1765 Mary 
  Magdaline Blimly 1865c. Children: 

                               Second Generation 

  61 George Pence b 16 Aug 1766 probably Frederick VA; d 1810 
Shenandoah Co VA; 
     m Mary Mauck 9 Nov 1790 Shenandoah Co. No further 
information on 
     descendants. 
  62 Jacob Pence b 15 Sep 1767 probably Frederick Co VA; d 12 Jun 
1828 
     Champaign Co OH; m Maria (Mary) Coffman 7 Jun 1802 
Shenandoah Co. Children 
     [apparently several of the nine credited to them d yg]: 

                              ***** Children ***** 

  63 Henry Pence b 4 Sep 1768 Frederick Co VA; d 11 Aug 1844 
Champaign Co OH; m 
     (1) Elizabeth Koontz 2 Jan 1788 Shenandoah Co VA, (2) Eve 
Snider 5 Jul 
     1803 Shenandoah Co. Children: 

                              ***** Children ***** 

  64 Abraham Pence b 4 Sep 1769 Frederick Co VA; d 1838 Champaign 
Co OH; m 
     Elizabeth Mauck 11 Feb 1791 Shenandoah Co; to Champaign in 
1811. Children: 

                              ***** Children ***** 

  65 Magdaline Pence b 31 Jan 1771 Frederick Co VA; no further 
information. 
  66 Susanna Pence b 4 Jul 1772 Frederick Co VA; d 21 May 1853 
Champaign Co OH; 
     m (1) Benjamin Maggert 6 May 1794 Shenandoah Co, (2) Thomas 
Jenkins before 
     Apr 1820 Champaign Co.  
  67 John Pence b 15 Jan 1774 Shenandoah Co VA; d 20 Sep 1841 
Henderson Co IL; 
     m (1) Eve Piper 22 Dec 1795 Shenandoah Co, (2) Elizabeth 
Steinberger 4 Jul 
     1803 Shenandoah Co, (3) Elizabeth [Heaton] Records 3 Apr 
1828 Bartholomew 
     Co IN; to Champaign Co OH in 1805, Bartholomew Co IN in 1820 
& Henderson 
     Co in 1828. Children: 

                              ***** Children ***** 

  68 Barbara Pence b 2 Nov 1775 Shenandoah Co VA; d before 1820 
[father's 
     will]; m (1) _____ Rosenberger, (2) John Stewart 9 Oct 1806 
Cham Co OH.  
  69 David Pence b 4 Feb 1777 Shenandoah Co VA [1778 tombstone]; 
d 1852 
     Fairfield Co OH; m (1) Barbara Ruffner 22 Jan 1803 Shen Co, 
(2) Katharine 
     Rose Groves 1 Feb 1832 Licking Co OH. Children, first 11 by 
first wife, 
     last four by second: 

                              ***** Children ***** 

  6X Joseph Pence b 26 Sep 1778 Shenandoah Co VA; d 6 Jul 1855 
Champaign Co OH; 
     m Magdalena Coffman 12 Nov 1809 Champaign Co. Children: 

                              ***** Children ***** 

  6A Samuel Pence b 4 Feb 1780 Shenandoah Co VA; d - Feb 1815 
Champaign Co; m 
     Elizabeth Cowick 8 Jan 1809 Champaign Co. Children: 

                              ***** Children *****  

  6B Anna Pence b 10 Oct 1781 Shenandoah Co VA; d 25 Mar 1847 
Montgomery Co IN; 
     m John Norman 11 Feb 1800 Shenandoah Co; to Bartholomew Co 
IN, then 
        Montgomery Co.  
  6C Isaac Pence b 23 Jul 1784 Shenandoah Co VA; d 7 Apr 1854 
Washington Co IA; 
     m Susannah Aleshire 25 Jan 1806 Shenandoah Co. Children: 

                              ***** Children ***** 

  6D Elizabeth Pence b 22 Jun 1786 Shenandoah Co VA; d 14 Apr 
1854 Champaign Co 
     OH; m John Steinberger c1806 probably in Shenandoah Co or 
possibly in 
     Champaign Co.  
  6E Benjamin Pence b 25 Apr 1787 Shenandoah Co VA; d 8 Feb 1875 
Bartholomew 
     Co; m Catherine Steinberger 8 Apr 1811 Champaign Co. 
Children: 

                              ***** Children ***** 

  6F Mary Pence b 9 Jun 1789 Shenandoah Co VA; d - --- 18-- IL; m 
William 
     Runkle c1808; to IL; their daughter Dicey (Dunlap) d 25 Jan 
1912, age 100 
     yr, 11 mo, 15 da after having lived in Morgan Co IL since 
1830.  
  6G Reuben Pence b 28 Jun 1791 Shenandoah Co VA; d 1 Oct 1840 
Miami Co OH; m 
     Anne Cowick 27 Aug 1811 Champaign Co OH; to Miami Co in 
1821. Children: 

                              ***** Children ***** 

                               Second Generation 

  621 Katherine Pence b c1803 Shenandoah Co VA; d before 1820 OH; 
m Michael 
      Kite c1819 OH. 

             ***** Other Children of Jacob, No. 62, down to: 
***** 

  626 Jacob Pence b 10 Oct 1812 Champaign Co OH; d 3 Apr 1898 
Champaign Co; m 
      Sarah Dugan 20 Sep 1833 Clark Co OH.  

                              ***** Children ***** 

  631 Barbara Pence b 9 Nov 1789 Shenandoah Co VA; d 14 Apr 1866 
Champaign Co 
      OH; m Daniel Snider 14 Nov 1809 Shenandoah Co.  
  
               ***** Other Children of Henry, 63, down to: ***** 

  637 Susannah Pence b 1823 Champaign Co OH; d 13 Dec 1846 
Champaign Co; m 
      Daniel Blose 7 Dec 1837 Champaign Co.  

  641 Mary Pence b 25 Nov 1791 Shenandoah Co VA; d 14 Dec 1886 
Champaign Co OH; 
      m Daniel Loudenback 8 Nov 1812 Champaign Co.  

                   ***** Other Children of Abraham, 64 ***** 

  671 Elizabeth Pence b 22 Apr 1799 Shenandoah Co VA; d - Dec 
      1844 Henderson Co IL; m Thomas Doolittle Wells c1817 
      Champaign Co OH. 

                ***** Other Children of John, 67, down to: ***** 

  67F Charlotte Pence b 1 May 1839 Henderson Co IL; d 14 Jun 1906 
Alameda Co 
      CA; m John Kee Madden 22 Mar 1865 Henderson Co.  

  691 Aaron Pence b 10 Dec 1803 Shenandoah Co VA; d 3 Mar 1886 
Licking Co OH; m 
      Maria Hand c1835 Licking Co.  

                **** Other Children of David, 69, down to: ***** 

  69E Sarah Katherine Pence b 20 Jul 1840 Fairfield Co OH; m John 
P. Mays c1858 
      Fairfield Co.  

  6X1 Julia A. Pence b 26 May 1809 Champaign Co OH; d inf.  

               ***** Other Children of Joseph, 6X, down to: ***** 

  6X9 Joseph Pence b 7 Jul 1825 Champaign Co OH; d 1 Apr 1909 
Wyandotte Co KS; 
      m Jane Sifers 7 Nov 1858 Champaign Co.  

                      *****  Children of Samuel, 6A ***** 

                       ***** Children of Isaac, 6B ***** 

                      ***** Children of Benjamin, 6C ***** 

  6G1 Ocey Pence b 16 Feb 1812 Champaign Co OH; d 9 Jun 1844 
Miami Co; m 
         Jabez Lucas 6 Oct 1827 Shelby Co OH.  

               ***** Other Children of Isaac, 6G, down to: ***** 

  6G6 William Lossen Pence b 7 Apr 1821 Champaign Co OH; d 3 Mar 
1882 Miami 
      Co OH; m (1) Harriet Rudy 11 May 1848 Miami Co, (2) Barbara 
Rudy 9 Oct 
      1851 Miami Co. 

                                Third Generation 

  6261 Mary Ann Pence b 26 Jul 1834; d 10 Dec 1915 Defiance Co 
OH; m 
       Christopher Rose 14 Aug 1853 Champaign Co OH. 

                               **** down to **** 

  6G63 Alfred Fortescue Pence b 30 May 1859 Miami Co OH; d - Sep 
1908 Franklin 
       Co OH; m (1) Ella D. Stoker c1878, (2) Leona Dell McCashen 
1896 OH. 


THE D'ABOVILLE SYSTEM 

There is also a system called the "d'Aboville System," which is 
similar to the Henry System, except that each digit (or group of 
two digits for numbers larger than 10) is separated by a period.  


D'Aboville Example 

                           Descendants of Henry Pence 

6 Henry Pence b c1740 probably Germany; d 1824 Champaign Co OH; m 
c1765 Mary 
  Magdaline Blimly 1765c. Children: 

                                First Generation 

6.1 George Pence b 16 Aug 1766 probably Frederick VA; d 1810 
Shenandoah Co VA; 
    m Mary Mauck 9 Nov 1790 Shenandoah Co. 6.2 Jacob Pence b 15 
Sep 1767 probably Frederick Co VA; d 12 Jun 1828 Champaign 
    Co OH; m Maria (Mary) Coffman 7 Jun 1802 Shenandoah Co.  6.3 
Henry Pence b 4 Sep 1768 Frederick Co VA; d 11 Aug 1844 Champaign 
Co OH; m 
    (1) Elizabeth Koontz 2 Jan 1788 Shenandoah Co, (2) Eve Snider 
5 Jul 1803 
    Shenandoah Co. 6.4 Abraham Pence b 4 Sep 1769 Frederick Co 
VA; d 1838 Champaign Co OH; m 
    Elizabeth Mauck 11 Feb 1791 Shenandoah Co; to Champaign in 
1811.  

6.5 Magdaline Pence b 31 Jan 1771 Frederick Co VA; no further 
information; 
    neither she nor heirs mentioned in father's will, so 
apparently she d unm 
    before 1820.  

And so on to ..... 

                               Second Generation 

6.2.1 Katherine Pence b c1803 Shenandoah Co VA; d before 1820 OH; 
m Michael 
      Kite c1819 OH.  

                         ***** Other Children to ***** 

6.2.6 Jacob Pence b 10 Oct 1812 Champaign Co OH; d 3 Apr 1898 
Champaign Co; m 
      Sarah Dugan 20 Sep 1833 Clark Co OH.  6.3.1 Barbara Pence b 
9 Nov 1789 Shenandoah Co VA; d 14 Apr 1866 Champaign Co 
      OH; m Daniel Snider 14 Nov 1809 Shenandoah Co.  

                         ***** Other Children to ***** 

6.3.7 Susannah Pence b 1823 Champaign Co OH; d 13 Dec 1846 
Champaign Co; m 
      Daniel Blose 7 Dec 1837 Champaign Co.  6.4.1 Mary Pence b 
25 Nov 1791 Shenandoah Co VA; d 14 Dec 1886 Champaign Co OH; 
      m Daniel Loudenback 8 Nov 1812 Champaign Co. 

                         ***** Other Children to ***** 

6.4.4 David Pence b 1 Mar 1807 Shenandoah Co VA; d 27 Apr 1884 
Champaign Co OH; 
      m Priscilla Frazee 1 Sep 1831 Miami Co OH.  

Down to the last person in the third generation ..... 

6.17.6.3 Alfred Fortescue Pence b 30 May 1859 Miami Co OH; d - 
Sep 1908 
         Franklin Co OH; m (1) Ella D. Stoker c1878, (2) Leona 
Dell McCashen 
         1896 OH. 


MODIFIED HENRY SYSTEMS 

In a common modification of the Henry system, when there are more 
than nine children, the numbers are placed in parentheses. Thus 
the tenth child of number 111 is 111(10) and his or her children 
become 111(10)1, etc. Thus No. 6G63 in the Henry System and 
6.17.6.3 in the d'Aboville System would become: 

6(17)63 Alfred Fortescue Pence b 30 May 1859 Miami Co OH; d - Sep 
1908 Franklin 
        Co OH; m (1) Ella D. Stoker c1878, (2) Leona Dell 
McCashen 1896 OH. 

However, in today's computer world the most common variation of 
the Henry System is different substitutes the letters A, B and C 
for the 10th, 11th and 12th children, rather than X, A and B. The 
reason for this is they way computers sort digits and alpha 
characters. 

Modified Henry System Example 

Following is a partial printout of a word-processing file I 
maintain, "The Descendants of John Pence," which uses the 
Modified Henry System as a basis for indexing an article. Please 
note that this file does not separate descendants by generations, 
but puts each person in the text only once - directly under his 
or her parents and with his or her siblings. The reason for this: 
I also keep a database index of each of these text files and each 
individual's ID number is included in that file. Thus, I can use 
the database to locate an individual's ID number, then go to the 
text files to find that individual, as each person is in ID 
number order, 67 through 67G. Note that 672 comes before 68 - 
this is the way the numbers will be ordered by a computer with an 
alphanumeric sort (at least one using the ASCII Character code). 
I have published two books using this system; the advantage is 
that at any given moment, I can print out the text and create an 
index for it. No need to know what page the person is on. All you 
need is his or hers ID number. 

Descendants of John Pence (Henry-1) Shenandoah County, Virginia, 
Champaign County, Ohio, Bartholomew County, Indiana, and 
Henderson County, Illinois 

67 JOHN b 15 Jan 1774 Shenandoah Co VA; d 20 Sep 1841 Henderson 
Co IL; m (1) Eve Piper 22 Dec 1795 Shenandoah Co, (2) Elizabeth 
Steinberger 4 Jul 1803 Shenandoah Co, (3) Elizabeth [Heaton] 
Records 3 Apr 1828 Bartholomew Co IN; to Champaign Co OH in 1805, 
Bartholomew Co IN in 1820 & Henderson Co in 1828. Children, first 
two by first wife, next nine by second wife & last five by third 
wife: 

  671 ELIZABETH b 22 Apr 1799 Shenandoah Co VA; d - Dec 1844 
Henderson Co IL; m 
  Thomas Doolittle Wells c1817 Champaign Co OH. 

  672 MARY b 12 Dec 1800 Shenandoah Co VA; d 18 Sep 1831 Fort 
Pence, Henderson 
  Co IL; m William Beatty 17 May 1817 Champaign Co OH. 

  673 GEORGE b 29 Mar 1804 Shenandoah Co VA; d 29 Mar 1879 Warren 
Co IN; m (1) 
  Mary Swisher 27 Dec 1827 Bartholomew Co IN, (2) Grace Gaynor 
[Foreman] Romine 
  18 Mar 1852 Warren Co IN, (3) Mrs Catherine Loyd 5 Dec 1867 
Warren Co. 
  Children, first nine by first wife, last by third wife:  

    6731 CURTIS MONROE b 23 Sep 1828 Bartholomew Co IN; d 15 Mar 
1913 Warren Co 
    IN; m Susannah Etnire 3 Mar 1853 Warren Co. Children: 

      67311 MARY OLIVE b 3 Aug 1856 Warren Co IN; d 7 Oct 1857 
Warren Co. 

      67312 EMILY JANE (KATE) b 7 Oct 1858 Warren Co IN; d 5 Jun 
1920 Warren 
      Co; m (1) Albert Hevel 11 Feb 1883 Warren Co, (2) Charles 
Edgar Roe 7 Jan 
      1897 Warren Co. 

      67313 ALLEN MONROE b 10 Mar 1861 Warren Co IN; d 22 Feb 
1933 Brown Co SD; 
      m Rosa May Gady 1 Apr 1888 Warren Co; Palo Alto Co IA in 
1900, to Brown 
      Co shortly thereafter. Children: 

        673131 SILVIA BELLE b 4 Jun 1890 Warren Co IN; d 24 Oct 
1977 Hennepin 
        Co MN; m Ira David Wiltsey 23 Mar 1912 Dickey Co ND. 
        
                        ***** Plus other children down to: ***** 

        673138 ROBERT MONROE b 22 Dec 1909 Brown Co SD; d 22 Oct 
1970 Brown Co; 
        m Clarice Ethlyn Stanley 14 Jun 1930 Leola, McPherson Co 
SD. Children: 

          6731381 RICHARD ALLEN b 17 Oct 1932 Aberdeen, Brown Co 
SD; m Lillian 
          Llewellyn Hutto 25 Jul 1964 Jackson, Hinds Co MS; 
compiler of these 
          records. Children, b Washington DC: TODD MONROE [4 May 
1968], ROBERT 
          CHANDLER [22 Apr 1971], LAURA LLEWELLYN [16 Nov 1974]. 

          6731382 DONALD LEE b 13 Aug 1934 Frederick, Brown Co 
SD; d 31 Oct 
          1974 Aberdeen, Brown Co SD. 

          6731383 MARGIE ANN b 5 Jul 1937 Frederick, Brown Co SD; 
d 21 Dec 1985 
          Aberdeen, Brown Co SD; m Ralph Leroy Buntrock 19 Mar 
1955 Webster, 
          Day Co SD.  

                      ***** Plus other family members down to: 
***** 

  67G CHARLOTTE b 1 May 1839 Henderson Co IL; d 14 Jun 1906 
Alameda Co CA [as a 
  result of the San Francisco earthquake]; m John Kee Madden 22 
Mar 1865 Henderson Co. 

The de Villiers/Pama System 

A system much used overseas, primarily in South Africa,  is the 
de Villiers/Pama system. The following information regarding the 
system was written by Steve Hayes of South Africa amd sent to the 
authori in 1991. 

The de Villiers/Pama system was invented by Chris. de Villiers, 
who used it in his published work Genealogies of Old Cape 
Families. published in the 1890s, I think, and revised more 
recently by Dr. Cor Pama. The same numbering system is now being 
used in a new work called Genealogies of South African Families, 
by Heese & Lombard, published by the Human Sciences Research 
Council. 

The original ancestor you start numbering from is a. Every 
subsequent generation takes the following generation letter, so 
the children of a are b, the grand children c, and so on. Each 
child is given a number - the oldest is 1, the second 2, and so 
on. 

So the children of a are 

  b1 
  b2 
  b3 

Their children are 

  b1 
   c1 
   c2 
     d1 
   c3 
     d1 
     d2 
  b2 
   c1 
   c2 

and so on.Thus the third child of the second child is b2.c3 

Sample of the de Villiers/Pama System 

Descendant Report for Thomas STOOKE 

a Thomas STOOKE . b1 John STOOKE, Born ??? 1592, Died ??? 1642 at 
age 50 . . c1 William STOOKE, Born Feb 1619, Died 30 Apr 1677 at 
age 58 . . . d1 William STOOKE, Born 13 Jan 1656, Died 31 Oct 
1676 at age 20 . . . d2 James STOOKE, Born 10 Nov 1659, Died 6 
Nov 1677 at age 17 . . . d3 John STOOKE, Born 6 Oct 1662, Died 
??? . . . d4 Francis STOOKE, Born ??? 1665, Died 6 Jul 1704 at 
age 39 . . .  . e1 John STOOKE, Born 3 Dec 1691, Died ??? . . .  
. e2 Mary STOOKE, Born 3 Aug 1693, Died 7 Aug 1694 at age 1 . . .  
. e3 William STOOKE, Born 4 May 1698, Died 30 Jan 1735 at age 36 
. . c2 Marie STOOKE, Born Sep 1622, Died ??? . . c3 Nicholas 
STOOKE, Born ??? 1624?, Died Jul 1710? at age 86 . . . d1 John 
STOOKE, Born Jan 1660 . . . d2 Mary STOOKE, Born Apr 1664, Died 
Apr 1664 at age 0 . . . d3 Grace STOOKE, Born Apr 1665, Died Jul 
1689 at age 24 . . . d4 Nicholas STOOKE, Born Apr 1668, Died ??? 
. . . d5 Susanna STOOKE, Born Mar 1670, Died ??? . . . d6 Mary 
(?) STOOKE, Born Jun 1673, Died ??? . . c4 George STOOKE, Born 
Jul 1626, Died 23 Jul 1629 at age 3 . . c5 John STOOKE, Born ??? 
1628, Died ??? 1696 at age 68 . . c6 Edward STOOKE, Born Sep 
1631, Died Sep 1699? at age 68 . . . d1 Edward STOOKE, Born ??? 
1656, Died ??? 1727 at age 71 . . . . e1 Mary STOOKE, Died 16 Sep 
1686 . . . . e2 John STOOKE, Born ??? 1687, Died 13 Jun 1760? at 
age 73 . . . . e3 William STOOKE, Born 23 Feb 1691, Died ??? . . 
. . e4 James STOOKE, Born ??? 1696, Died 1 Jul 1741 at age 45 . . 
. . . f1 Anne STOOKE, Born ??? 1728, Died 4 Oct 1775 at age 47 . 
. . . e5 Thomas STOOKE, Born ??? 1700, Died Dec 1789 at age 89 . 
. . . . f1 Mary STOOKE, Born Jul 1733, Died ??? . . . . . f2 
James STOOKE, Born Sep 1736, Died ??? 1768 at age 31 . . . . . f3 
Elizabeth STOOKE, Born Mar 1738, Died ??? 1761 at age 22 . . . . 
. f4 John STOOKE, Born Jan 1739, Died 13 Jun 1760 at age 21 . . . 
. . f5 Thomas STOOKE, Born Oct 1742, Died Dec 1784 at age 42 . . 
. . . f6 George STOOKE, Born Jan 1744, Died 10 Dec 1814 at age 70 
. . . . . f7 Martha STOOKE, Born Dec 1746, Died ??? . . . . . f8 
Francis STOOKE, Born ??? 1748, Died ??? . . . . . f9 Grace 
STOOKE, Born Jun 1750, Died ??? . . . . .f10 Thomas STOOKE, Born 
Dec 1834, Died ??? . . . . e6 Edward STOOKE, Born ??? 1701?, Died 
8 Jun 1752? at age 51 . . . . . f1 John STOOKE, Born Mar 1730?, 
Died ??? . . . . . f2 Edward STOOKE, Born Jan 1732?, Died ??? . . 
. . . f3 William STOOKE, Born Nov 1735?, Died ??? . . . . . f4 
Elizabeth STOOKE, Born Apr 1739?, Died ??? . . . . . f5 James 
STOOKE, Born Jun 1742?, Died ??? . . . . . f6 Grace STOOKE, Born 
9 Jun 1745, Died ??? . . . d2 Grace STOOKE, Born 4 Nov 1658, Died 
??? 1683 at age 24 . . c7 George STOOKE, Born Sep 1633, Died ??? 
1637 at age 3 . . c8 Thomas STOOKE, Born Sep 1633, Died ??? . . 
c9 Susan STOOKE, Born ??? 1635, Died Nov 1649 at age 14 Other 
Variations 

Letters to the NGS/CIG DIGEST indicate that others have worked 
out their own "modified Henry" systems. Some use alternating 
letters and numbers, others all letters. One reader -with 
relatively few records - assigns each person two digits and 
separates these with a dash. 

Advantages and Disadvantages of the 'Non-Register' Systems 

The major drawback of these numbering systems is that they lack 
acceptance among professionals. And the many variations in 
themselves can cause confusion among readers going from 
publication to publication. But they do allow you to look at the 
number and trace the individual back through the generations. 

For computer purposes, the "modern" modified Henry System has 
distinct advantages over some of the other modifications, in that 
each generation takes one and only one number or character, thus 
saving computer space [compare 6A7B9 with 6(10)7(11)9]. Also, 
personal computers sort in "ASCII" code sequence, which means 
that 6A will immediately follow 69. Also, 691 would be sorted in 
between those two. 

The modification that uses parenthesis, along with the d'Aboville 
system, because they use all numbers, do provide the easiest 
method of tracing back an individual's ancestory. Devine says one 
of the main advantages of the Henry or similar systems is that it 
allows for placing newly found children and their descendants 
without the wholesale renumbering necessary with the Register or 
Record systems. Renumbering is also somewhat of a problem for 
Henry-type systems. A reader noted: "If additional genealogical 
research uncovers another child, who should fit in between two 
other children with consecutive numbers, there is no way to make 
this happen, without renumbering the existing children." 

This is a problem if you're trying to keep the children in 
chronological order and the newly found one is the oldest of a 
dozen. However, if you're keeping your records on a word 
processor, careful use of its search/replace feature makes the 
changes much easier. If you're using a nongenealogical database 
program, you can develop a process to automatically make such 
changes. 
     
One NGS/CIG DIGEST reader pointed out that a numbering system 
which requires one character per generation means that in order 
to provide for 40 generations, data records must be set up to 
contain that many characters, even though most of them do not use 
all 40 characters. Again, for most of us, this is not a practical 
restriction - but it is one to keep in mind. 

This same reader noted that hexidecimal numbers run out at 15 
(hex F). "We all know of families with more than 15 children. 
Even if one extends the concept to include all of the alphabet 
one reaches a maximum of 35 (9 digits and 26 alphabetics). 
Checking the Guiness Book of Records shows that even 35 is 
insufficient." Again, something to keep in mind, but not a real 
restriction for most of us. A family beyond 20 - even 25 with 
several wives - is rare. One could even add another 26 child 
identifications by using upper case letters the first time around 
and lower case the second - computers distinguish between the 
two. 

COMBINED NUMBERING SYSTEMS 

As pointed out by Devine in his article, you can get a unique 
identification number for any collateral relative in any line of 
descent by using the Sosa-Stradonitz number of the common 
ancestor, followed by a decimal point and an expansible descent 
number based on the Modified Henry System (the first child of 
your ancestor No. 128 would be 128.1 and so on; Devine points out 
that if 128.1 is also your ancestor he would additionally have 
the number 64 in your chart). Spouses of those in resulting 
descent files can be given unique numbers by adding the letters 
a, b and c for spouses 1, 2 and 3 of any given individual. 
William Dollarhide, creator of the Everyone's Family Tree, goes 
even one step further in recordkeeping with his software. Bill 
puts an asterisk before the letter identifying the marriage 
number (so spouses will sort separately). He also can create a 
"new" ahnentafel for each collateral ancestor by adding a colon 
to the end of the ID No. and then adds the "new" ahnentafel 
number. If, for instance, the brother of your grandfather is 
16.1, his first wife's number would be 16.1*a. If you desired to 
include her ancestors in your database, then her "new" ahnentafel 
number would be 16.1*a:1 and her father's number would be 
16.1*a:2, etc. 

Always keep in mind, however, that ancestor and descendent 
databases are two distinct things. A DIGEST reader pointed out: 
"The primary problem with numbering systems is the frequent 
effort to mix ancestral numbering with descent numbering. Like 
oil and water, they do not mix. They start at opposite ends of 
the scale." He noted that if you are keeping a record of your own 
ancestors, you should use the Stradonitz system; if you are 
writing a history of the descendants of one of your ancestors, 
you will need a different numbering system.  

For instance, I keep records on all Pences I learn about. I use 
the Modified Henry numbering system for those 11,000 records. But 
only about a dozen of those are ancestors of mine, so I have 
extracted these and include them in an ahnentafel-based system 
along with my other ancestors. 

NUMBERING SYSTEMS IN COMMONLY USED GENEALOGICAL SOFTWARE 

Most genealogy software packages rely entirely on the computer to 
assign numbers to individuals in the database. Parents are then 
linked to the children on the basis of this number. Quinsept's 
Family Roots is one of those which operates this way. It is also 
one of those which allows you to include your own numbering 
system, as do most others. The Dollarhide program, which - as 
pointed out later - will generate a printout using the Register 
System, allows you to use your own numbering system and now 
supports a user-defined numbering system such as the Modified 
Henry (see earlier discussion). In fact, most genealogy software 
have options for user-defined fields. 

M. O. Duke, author of the program Genealogy on Display, believes 
that "the only really valid numbering system is pure numeric: 
"Let the computer keep track of relationships and families within 
its own structure. Let it present the information in a format 
which we humans are accustomed to seeing, or would like to see. 
But, don't require that computers keep track of information in 
the way that we humans do." His program requires that every 
person get three numbers: (1) a unique serial number in the 
database, (2) his or her father's serial number, and (3) his or 
her mother's serial number. A fourth number is needed to link the 
person to his or her spouse! Other programs, because of the way 
they relate individuals within the database, require that 
individuals be entered in a certain way (e.g., in ascending or 
descending order or children right after parents). 

ROOTS and Everyone's Family Tree (Dollarhide Systems) are two 
programs which will print out their databases in Register or 
Modified Register formats. The latter also will printout 
genealogies using a Modified Henry numbering system. Other 
programs, either have the built-in ability or have specially 
written utilities that allow Henry numbering system printouts. If 
these features are important to you, be sure to check their 
current availability before investing in a program. 

THE LAST WORD ON NUMBERING SYSTEMS 

It comes from yet another DIGEST reader: "A truly honest 
statement. As a genealogy teacher, I am sick unto death of people 
coming up with yet another numbering system. Gilbert Doane gave a 
numbering system in 'Searching for Your Ancestors' for pedigree 
charts that as worked for me for 20 years without renumbering. 
(One of the few genealogists I know that has never had to redo.) 
The Register system works just fine. Why change it? Computers 
need numbers for their own use. Numbers as supplied by Personal 
Ancestral File work just fine for the computer. Why try to make 
the computer compatible with anything else? Genealogy programs 
that print pedigree charts do not print books. Change for change 
sake is a pain in the neck as far as I am concerned. I do not 
like to waste my valuable research time trying to figure out how 
another enterprising author dreamed up the 'ultimate numbering 
system.'" 


THE AUTHOR'S LAST WORD 

I've learned that genealogical numbering systems is a topic on 
which EVERYONE has an opinion. I've got my opinion; I respect 
those of others. I offer these thoughts in support of my opinion: 

   o The Register and Record Systems - try as I might - badly 
confuse me. Both in trying to write material using either of them 
and in trying to follow a genealogy written with them. 

   o Computers are good at assigning numbers. Take a look at the 
code above your name on a mailing list label if you don't believe 
me. That number may mean something to a computer and even, 
perhaps, to someone who manages the mailing list. It doesn't tell 
me a heck of a lot. Neither do the numbers assigned by a computer 
to my genealogical database. If I assign the 
     number, it has meaning to me and it might even make it 
easier for me when I'm entering data. I prefer being able to look 
at the number and being able to say, "Oh, yeah, he's a descendant 
of the Adam Pence who lived in Scott County, Kentucky; a third 
great grandson." It even beats getting the chance to power up the 
computer and having it figure that out for me. 

   o The main thing - as I heard a librarian plead one day - is 
don't make it so complicated that you confuse your reader. I've 
done that, so will quit. 

