NUMBERING SYSTEMS IN COMPUTER GENEALOGY Richard A. Pence July 19, 1986 National Genealogical Society Computer Interest Group National Archives, Washington, DC [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 was gleaned from that article. Ancestry Newsletter is published by Ancestry, P.O. Box 476, Salt Lake City, UT 84110. Toll-free order number is 800-531-1790.] ANCESTOR NUMBERING 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 later). The first child of your ancestor No. 128 would be 128.1 and so on. Note 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. 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: Your father's number is always twice as large as yours and your 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 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 -1- 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 CIG 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. 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. -2- 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 11 August 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. -3- ??. 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 County. [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. 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. -4- +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. 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. -5- 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 AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE REGISTER AND 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 number ing system that simply hooks onto the 'dead ends' of his?" As for using these systems for computer record-keeping, George Ely Russell, 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 automa tic 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. -6- The only software I am aware of that will support the Register System is the Dollarhide Software. This program may now be available, but was still undergoing testing at the time of the NGS Conference in Columbus, OH, in late May. I saw a demonstration while at the conference and it does, indeed, print in the Register format, generating the numbers "on the fly." The software can be ordered through Posey International for $185 (regular $195), which will include a 6-month subscription to the Genealogical Computer Pioneer. Available for the Macintosh, TRS-80 Model 4 DOS, CP/M, Apple II family and IBM. Price good until Sep. 30, 1986. Write Posey International, P.O. Box 338, Orem, UT 84057. 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. 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, 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. Example: Descendants of Henry Pence 6 Henry Pence b c1740 probably Germany; d 1824 Champaign Co OH; m c1765 Mary Magdaline Blimly 1865c. Children: 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, -7- last four by second: ***** Children ***** 6(10) 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 ***** 6(11) Samuel Pence b 4 Feb 1780 Shenandoah Co VA; d - Feb 1815 Champaign Co; m Elizabeth Cowick 8 Jan 1809 Champaign Co. Children: ***** Children ***** 6(12) 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. 6(13) 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 ***** 6(14) 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. 6(15) 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 ***** 6(16) 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. 6(17) 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 ***** 644 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. 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: ***** 67(16) 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: ***** -8- 69(15) Sarah Katherine Pence b 20 Jul 1840 Fairfield Co OH; m John P. Mays c1858 Fairfield Co. 6(10)1 Julia A. Pence b 26 May 1809 Champaign Co OH; d inf. ***** Other Children of Joseph, 6(10), down to: ***** 6(10)9 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, 6(11) ***** ***** Children of Isaac, 6(13) ***** ***** Children of Benjamin, 6(15) ***** 6(17)1 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, 6(17), down to: ***** 6(17)6 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 Charistopher Rose 14 Aug 1853 Champaign Co OH. **** down to **** 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. 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. Example: Descendants of Henry Pence 6 Henry Pence b c1740 probably Germany; d 1824 Champaign Co OH; m c1765 Mary Magdaline Blimly 1765c. Children: 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. Children [apparently several of the nine credited to them d yg]: 6.2.1 Katherine Pence b c1803 Shenandoah Co VA; d before 1820 OH; m Michael Kite c1819 OH. ***** Other Children ***** 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 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. Children: 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 ***** 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 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: -9- 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 ***** 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. 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 ..... 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. THE MODIFIED HENRY SYSTEM. The "Modified Henry System" is different from the Henry system in that instead of using (10), (11), (12) for the tenth, 11th and 12th children, the letters A, B and C are substituted, and so on. 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 673 - this is the way the numbers will be ordered by a computer with an alphanumeric sort. 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: -10- 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 Hutton 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 descendants 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. 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. However, they do allow one to look at the ID number and trace the individual back through the generations. -11- For computer purposes, the Modified Henry System has distinct advantages over some of the others, in that each generation takes one and only one number or character, thus saving computer space [compare 6A7B9 with 6(10)7(11)9]. The Henry system (along with the D'aboville system), because it is all numbers, does 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 Digest or Record systems. This 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 are much easier to make. 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 pointed out that hexidecimal system runs 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 researchers. A family beyond 20 - 25 with even several wives - is indeed 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.] COMBINING 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. Always keep in mind, however, that ancestor and descendent databases are two distinct things. A Digest reader pointed out why: "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 simply 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 -12- Henry numbering system for those 15,000 records. But only about a dozen of those are ancestors of mine, so I have extracted these and include them in an ahnentafel-based ancestor record-keeping system. 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 related 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 - will generate a printout using the Register System, allows you to use your own numbering system, but the catch (for me) is that it must be entirely digits. 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 everyone gets 3 numbers: (1) a unique serial number in the database, (2) person's father's serial number, and (3) person's mother's serial number. 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). THE LAST WORD ON NUMBERING SYSTEMS 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 an other enterprising author dreamed up the 'ultimate numbering system.'" -13-