When to Stop Extending a Family Tree: Records, DNA, and the Limits of Evidence

Why careful genealogy sometimes means leaving branches unfinished

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this post is to explain a research dilemma I’ve encountered while studying my Peterson ancestry: how DNA evidence, early church records, and modern indexing can push family trees further back than the surviving documentation can reliably support, and why I’ve chosen to stop where the records stop.

When DNA Goes Further Than the Records

One of the hardest decisions in genealogy is not how to extend a family line, but when to stop extending it.

As I’ve continued working on my Peterson research, I’ve run into a dilemma that many family historians face today. DNA evidence suggests connections that stretch several generations beyond what the surviving records clearly support. Online trees reflect those connections with confidence, often presenting long ancestral lines that appear tidy and complete. Yet when I slow down and look for the documents that should anchor those relationships, the trail becomes much less certain.

What the Records Clearly Support

My direct ancestor in this line is Robert Peterson (1774–1834). The documentary evidence supporting Robert and his immediate family is solid enough to work with carefully. His father, John Peterson, who married Ruth Pyles, is supported by records that can be evaluated and cross-checked.

Beyond John, however, the evidence changes in character. Instead of clear statements of parentage, I encounter repeated names, church entries with descriptive terms, and DNA connections that point in a general direction but do not confirm a specific relationship.

When Repetition Starts to Look Like Proof

In several trees, John Peterson’s parents are confidently named, sometimes with detailed ancestral lines reaching back into Europe. These same names also appear across multiple DNA-connected trees, which can give the impression of confirmation.

But repetition is not proof. DNA can tell us that people are related; it does not, by itself, tell us exactly how they are related. Without records that explicitly connect a parent to a child, the relationship remains a hypothesis, no matter how often it appears online.

A Delaware Baptism Record as an Example

A Delaware baptism record illustrates how this problem can take shape. Indexed versions of the record list:

Peter Peterson Cauponi
Spouse: Magdalena
Child: Johan Peterson Cauponi

At first glance, it is easy to read this as a family with a compound surname, or to assume that “Cauponi” is part of the Peterson name. Some researchers have carried this forward by inserting “Caupany” or similar spellings into modern family trees as a middle name or additional surname.

The record itself does not support that reading.

What “Cauponi” Likely Means

The term cauponi comes from Latin and is associated with caupo, meaning an innkeeper, tavern keeper, or merchant. In early church records, especially those written or indexed using Latin conventions, it was common to include descriptive terms alongside a person’s name. These descriptors helped distinguish individuals with common names, much like an occupation or place might be used today.

In this case, the record identifies a man named Peter Peterson, his wife Magdalena, and their child Johan. The word cauponi appears to function as a descriptor attached to the name, not as a hereditary surname. It describes something about Peter, not who his ancestors were.

The safest way to read this record is not “Peter Peterson Cauponi” as a full name, but rather “Peter Peterson, described as cauponi.”

How Descriptors Turn Into Ancestors

Problems arise when descriptive terms like cauponi are lifted out of their original context and placed into modern name fields. Once entered as a surname or middle name, the descriptor begins to look like evidence of lineage. From there, it becomes easy to extend a tree backward another generation, even though the original record never intended to make that connection.

Over time, repetition across multiple trees can give the appearance that a conclusion is well established, when in fact it rests on a misunderstanding of how the record functions.

Why I Chose to Stop

This is the point where I have chosen to stop extending my own tree. Where records clearly state relationships, I use them. Where records introduce descriptive language that later becomes treated as a surname or proof of ancestry, I document the record itself but stop short of turning that descriptor into an ancestor.

This means my tree looks less complete than many others. It has fewer names filled in and more notes explaining uncertainty. That is intentional. I would rather leave a branch unfinished than attach it to the wrong family.

Genealogy is not just about how far back a tree can go. It is about understanding what records actually say, how they were created, and where their limits lie. Knowing when to stop is not a failure of research. It is part of doing the work responsibly.

Sources

1. “Delaware, U.S., Baptisms, 1697–1886,” database, Ancestry.com (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed 13 January 2026); original data from FamilySearch, “Delaware Baptisms, 1697–1886,” Salt Lake City, Utah.

2. FamilySearch Wiki, “Latin Genealogical Word List,” explaining Latin usage and descriptive terms in church records,
   https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/Latin_Genealogical_Word_List
   (accessed 13 January 2026).

3. Steve Peterson, profile for John Peterson (father of Robert Peterson), “Peterson and Hay Ancestry,” Ancestry.com,
   https://www.ancestry.com/family-tree/person/tree/10236187/person/-674227071/facts
   (accessed 13 January 2026; subscription required).

When Memory Became Evidence: A Revolutionary War Pension File and the Alexander Family

How a widow’s testimony preserved the family of James and Jerusha Alexander

Purpose Statement

This post began with a simple but difficult research goal…to document the parentage of my ancestor Nelson Alexander. Like many families who lived through the Revolutionary War era, direct records tying parents to children are scarce, incomplete, or lost altogether. As I worked backward through the nineteenth century, it became clear that traditional sources alone would not be enough. This is where Revolutionary War pension records become essential. They often preserve family structure, relationships, and life events that exist nowhere else. The pension file of Jerusha Alexander, widow of  James Alexander, is one such record. 

Setting the Record in Time and Place

In February 1838, Jerusha Alexander appeared before a justice of the peace in Boone County, Kentucky. She was eighty-three years old and stated that she was unable to appear in open court because of advanced age and physical infirmity. Instead, she gave a sworn declaration as part of her application for a widow’s pension under federal law. This declaration, supported by affidavits and later reviewed by the War Department, now forms a rare and unusually complete family record. It documents Revolutionary War service, marriage, widowhood, migration, and the births of eight children across a span of more than twenty years. 

Jerusha Alexander’s Sworn Declaration

Jerusha stated that she was the widow of James Alexander, who served as a sergeant in the Virginia Continental or State Line during the Revolutionary War. She recalled that her husband served under Captain Joseph Spencer and other officers whose names she could no longer remember.

She specifically remembered hearing James state that he served as an orderly sergeant under General Gates and that he was present at Gates’s defeat in 1780. Because of her age and failing memory, she acknowledged that she could not recall all officers or details. However, she affirmed from personal knowledge that James Alexander was engaged in regular military service for at least seven years.

Jerusha also described the conditions of that service. She stated that James was frequently detached from his unit and returned home only occasionally on furlough. She recalled severe hardship, suffering, and near starvation during those years, especially following the defeat of General Gates. 

Marriage, Death, and the Loss of Records

In her declaration, Jerusha stated that she married James Alexander on 10 April 1776 in Orange County, Virginia. She reported that James died on 10 April 1817 and that she had remained a widow ever since. She also explained why she could not produce original documentation. According to her statement, their house burned around 1790. In that fire, James’s military discharge papers and all family records were destroyed. This explanation appears repeatedly in Revolutionary War pension files and reflects the realities of record loss during the late eighteenth century. 

Community Testimony and Family Affidavits

Jerusha’s declaration was supported by affidavits from individuals who knew the family personally.

• George West, a Revolutionary War pensioner living in Boone County, stated that he had known James Alexander around 1811 and had heard him recount his Revolutionary War service on many occasions. West affirmed his belief that Jerusha was James’s lawful wife and described James as a truthful man. 
• Zebulin Alspin of Campbell County, Kentucky, stated that he had lived near James and Jerusha Alexander and knew them to have lived together as husband and wife during the Revolutionary War. He recalled that James was often away from home due to military service and affirmed his belief that Jerusha’s declaration was truthful. 
• John J. Alexander submitted an affidavit identifying himself as a son of James and Jerusha Alexander. He stated that he examined his mother’s declaration and believed it to be true. He confirmed that his parents’ house and papers had been destroyed by fire and recalled hearing his father read his military discharges and marriage record. John also stated that his own birth had been recorded as 2 May 1777. 

The Family Register Preserved in the Pension File

One of the most valuable elements of the pension file is a family register listing the children of James Alexander and Jerusha Townsend Alexander with full birth dates.

According to this register, their children were:

• John, born 2 May 1777
• James, born 9 November 1778
• Benjamin, born 6 December 1783
• William, born 17 October 1785
• Polly, born 29 August 1787
• Washington, born 8 February 1789
• Nelson, born 1 March 1791
• Willis, born 28 August 1797 

The register also records that 

• James Alexander was born on 28 February 1756 and
• Jerusha Townsend was born on 17 April 1755. 
• They were married 10 April 1776 

All these facts are consistent with Jerusha’s sworn testimony. 

War Department Review and Pension Summary

Later correspondence within the pension file summarizes the government’s review of the claim. According to the War Department abstract, James Alexander served six years as a sergeant in the Virginia troops, including service under Captain Joseph Spencer. The abstract states that he participated in the Battle of Camden and was present at the capture of Cornwallis. Exact service dates were not provided. 

The correspondence confirms that Jerusha applied for a widow’s pension on 15 February 1838 while living in Boone County, Kentucky. Pension officials noted that marriage records for Orange County, Virginia, did not survive for the period in question, making affidavits and family records necessary and acceptable forms of evidence. 

Why This Record Matters for Nelson Alexander

For my research, this pension file is critical. It provides direct evidence linking Nelson Alexander, born 1 March 1791, to his parents James Alexander and Jerusha Townsend. Without this file, that connection would rest largely on circumstantial evidence and later records.

This is a reminder of how Revolutionary War pension files function not only as military records, but as family documents. They preserve relationships, migrations, and life events that were never recorded elsewhere or were later destroyed. In a time period where proving parentage can be exceptionally difficult, these records often carry more genealogical weight than any single census or deed. 

Sources

• Revolutionary War Widow’s Pension File, Jerusha Alexander, widow of James Alexander, pension claim W. 8322, National Archives, Record Group 15.
• Affidavits of George West, Zebulin Alspin, and John J. Alexander, Boone County, Kentucky, dated 15 February 1838.
• Family register of James Alexander and Jerusha Townsend Alexander, included in pension file W. 8322.
• War Department pension abstract and correspondence relating to pension claim W. 8322.
• All images used in this post were created using AI-assisted illustration tools based on historically informed prompts. These images are interpretive visual aids intended to represent documented events and settings and are not contemporaneous or original historical images.