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.