@DaveSch My point was only that ‘male-line descendants’ would imply that both male male-line descendants and female male-line descendants are selected (which is the ability I was writing about in the previous thread). When you wrote about adding adopted sons I thought you only added adopted sons and not adopted daughters.
Male-line (patrilineal) descendants should include both males and females who are connected to the progenitor with a chain consisting of only males. Here’s a sample tree showing patrilineal/male-line descendants - green boxes represent male-line descendants and red boxes represent non-male-line descendants.
It makes perfect sense to add adopted children if we are not concerned about the genetic aspect of patrilineality but male-line/patrilineal descendants would also include females descended in the male line (vide this explanation of patrilineage).
I was just making the tweak to the code to take what you wanted and ensuring that adopted sons were included. I have adopted cousins so always try to see how they are included.
My coding ability does NOT extend to having the non male children automatically accounted for in the rule. My rule would be the sub-filter that would then select all children for those males as it was suggested for your filter needs.
I’ll try to think of another name for my little rule.
I think the default for rules in Gramps (please correct me if I’m wrong) is to include both biological and non-biological descendants unless stated otherwise?
Yes but when looking for possible Y chomosone matches within the database, adopted children, no matter how correct, are just herrings, whatever colour they are.
I wonder if we’re not going to have to learn to build some dynamic expansion for filter options?
Since Gramps allows Types to be user expandable (but of a limited set of options); it seems like we need a mechanism to poll that set, user select a subset, & then search for the subset.
As an example, the Child Reference Editor allows the Relationship to be set to: Adopted, Birth, Foster, None, Sponsored, Stepchild, Unknown.
But now with surrogacy, I might have a genetic (egg doner) mother who isn’t the gestating mother. Or she might be infertile and the surrogate was artificially (or naturally) inseminated. So I may have to eventually add those Relationship types. (After I’d researched what terms aren’t offensive to participants.)
Yet I’d certainly want such a child included as a genetic descendant where appropriate. As for ‘Unknown’? I’d probably play it safe and include those offspring too.
I don’t have any known examples in my database, but in that case I think I would want a value of Surrogate rather than Birth for the relationship with the gestating mother. Presumably the egg donor was anonymous, but might eventually be identified through DNA analysis. If that is the researcher’s goal, then prior to the family of the surrogate mother and the father, one could have a family with the egg donor and the father (family relationship type Unmarried, or perhaps a new value), in which the child’s relationship is to the mother is “birth” (though it should really be “conception”?). This would provide a path down to other descendants of the donor. The same approach could be used for sperm donors, or even if both of the conventional parents were surrogates. Personally I won’t worry about it until the need arises, but I do hope some such approach might be useful for people who are in need of a solution for managing their DNA connections.
Thanks @Mattkmmr! It would also be helpful to have X-DNA filter rules for descendants, similar to the ones that you created for mtDNA which include male and female children of female ancestors, but now also including female children of male ancestors. Then we could combine them with this filter rule to find our X-DNA cousins.
@GeorgeWilmes I renamed “X-chromosomal inheritance of <person>” to " X-chromosomal ancestors of <person>" and I also added a new filter rule " X-chromosomal descendants of <person>".
The filter rules are now merged and should now be downloadable via gramps built-in addon installation. I saw that @prculley also added them into another folder, so you should be able to install them separately from the other addon filter rules.
