Saturday, July 7, 2012

Saturday Night Genealogy Fun - What is Your d'Aboville Number?



Hello Genea-philes and SNGF-philes - it's Saturday Night, time for lots more Genealogy Fun!

Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is another genealogy software challenge - are you up to it?

1)  Do you know what a d'Aboville numbering system is?  A clear description of it is in the Encyclopedia of Genealogy here, and on Wikipedia here.  Pretty neat numbering system, isn't it?  

2)  What are your own d'Aboville numbers for your four lines of your grandparents (starting with the first known person in each grandparent's paternal line)?  Your genealogy software program may be able to help you with this (Family Tree Maker 2012, RootsMagic 5 and Legacy Family Tree 7.5 can, but Family Tree Maker 16 and earlier cannot).

3)  Tell us your own d'Aboville numbers for your four grandparent paternal lines in your own blog post, in a comment to this post, in a status line, note or comment on Facebook, or in a Google+ Plus Stream post.

4)  for extra credit, tell us how you figured out your d'Aboville numbers - which program, and the process.


Here's mine:

From Robert Seaver (1608-1683):  1.1.2.1.4.2.4.3.2.1.5.1

From John Richman (1788-1867):  1.5.1.7.5.1

From Martin Carringer (1758-1835):  1.6.2.2.1.1

From Andreas Able (????-1751):  1.4.2.2.2.3.1.1.1


How I did it in RootsMagic 5:

*  Opened RootsMagic, and clicked on the Help button and searched for "d'aboville number."  Read the information.

*  Clicked on the "Reports" menu, chose "Lists," and chose the "Descendant List" item.

*  Chose Robert Seaver (1608-1683) as the "Start person" and myself as the "Descendant." Selected d'Aboville in the "Numbering style" choices.  Made sure I had more than 12 generations selected.

*  Clicked "Create Report" and saw the report. Scrolled down to my name and copied off my d'Aboville number.

Easy, eh?  Now all I have to do is remember it so I can say I'm number 1.1.2.1.4.2.4.3.2.1.5.1 in the Robert Seaver descendants.


I also created a Descendants Report for Robert Seaver using d'Aboville numbers.  It has 920 pages...

The URL for this post is:  http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/07/saturday-night-genealogy-fun-what-is.html

Copyright (c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver

6 comments:

Eileen said...

My d'Aboville numbers are:
From Giovanni Battista Furlani - 1.1.2.3.1.1
From Bonaventura Bianchi - 1.9.1.1
From John Noble - 1.1.1.9.1.1
From Andreas Gunther - 1.7.1.1

I used the Descendant Report in FTM 2012 and selected the d'Aboville format. Simple when the computer does it for you.

Lisa Suzanne Gorrell said...

My d'Aboville numbers are:

from Thomas Coor ( - 1752) 1.1.1.1.7.9.1.1.1.1.
from John Sellman (1645-1707)1.1.2.10.7.1.3.4.4.1.1
from Johann Eberhardt Trösster (1704-1782)1.1.1.1.5.10.5.1
from Denis Tierney (1777 - 1856) 1.1.2.2.6.5.2.1

I found the numbers using RootsMagic. Don't understand the numbers, though.

Michelle said...

My d'Aboville numbers:
From Joseph Joachim Wiese(1835-????) 1.3.2.3.2
From Christian Ladner (1690-????) 1.1.2.9.5.1.2.7.1.2
From Charles Saucier (1672-1723) 1.1.2.3.5.6.3.5.1.2.7.1.2
From Daniel Austin Anderson (1755-????) 1.1.1.4.7.3.4.1.2
Now how I did it. I used the Legacy Family Tree Maker 7.5, and went to descendant reports. From there I chose d'Aboville in the numbering system. Then selected preview and on the easy two (Wiese and Anderson) my nine page report popped up allowing me to quickly view my d'Aboville number.

Anonymous said...

1.3.4.7 would be:
1 is the beginning ancestor
1.3 is the third child of 1
1.3.4 is the fourth child of 1.3
1.3.4.7 is the seventh child of 1.3.4

In RootsMagic, the number of the child comes from the order the children are sorted in as shown on the Family view

tn5rr2012 said...

This is a great post that shows the different ways to research the family tree. Charts and data can be very confusing to many newbies. I have been a genealogist for over 25 years now and I help people start their family trees. http://fiverr.com/tn5rr2012

Louis Kessler said...

Incomprehensible lists of numbers like these is exactly why I think most numbering systems are useless.