[APG Public List] Julian to Gregorian in source citation

LBoswell laboswell at rogers.com
Mon Dec 21 16:12:30 MST 2009

Not an American/Canadian thing, a Larry-ism (mistake)

But that aside, the use of that kind of noting of the Julian date always 
gives an inaccurate Gregorian date because it doesn't take into account the 
slippage?  What's the origin of noting the Julian/Gregorian date in this 

Depending on the date itself it can give a completely wrong year to the 
Gregorian date.

In one search I had decided that there wasn't enough time for a certain 
named person in an event in location A, at a given time to have been the 
similarly named person at another event in location B at a different time 
because I was ignoring the extra days that an accurate Gregorian date would 

Normally we wouldn't accept such inaccuracy, where known.  Why do we accept 
it by simply using the double year notation?

Or am I off the mark completely here

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <eshown at comcast.net>
To: <APGpubliclist at apgen.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 11:56 PM
Subject: RE: [APG Public List] Julian to Gregorian in source citation

> >So if the birth was 6 Feb 1680 in Julian calendar we'd record it as 6 Feb
> 1680/81.
> This may be an "American" thing vs. Canadian thing, but the long-standing
> American genealogical convention for writing the year, when 
> Julian-Gregorian
> double-dating is involved, would call for writing this as 6 February 
> 1680/1.
> (I.e., only one digit is used past the slash.)
> The rendition of the second year in two digits is the style used by CMOS 
> and
> most generic style guides for situations in which a range of years is
> discussed (i.e., 1680-81). Of course, savvy genealogists know that the 
> slash
> or virgule is used in place of the en dash/hyphen when double dating is
> involved, so they would correctly interpret Larry's date. But many newer
> genealogists do use the hyphen and the slash interchangeably and then
> naively render dates as 1680-81 or 1680/81 when they are simply uncertain
> about a year. Ergo, the American convention of using only one digit after
> the slash is a "visual signal" that a Julian-Gregorian double-dating issue
> is involved.
> For guides that illustrate the American convention, we have
> - Val Greenwood's classic _Researcher's Guide to American Genealogy_, 3d.
> ed., pp. 44-45;
> - Henry Hoff's _Genealogical Writing ... Register Style and More_, 17;
> - Hatcher's _Producing a Quality Family History_, 38; and
> - Donn Devine's Chap. 1 in ProGen, p. 6.
> Elizabeth
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
> Tennessee

More information about the APGPublicList mailing list