Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site druxv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!drux3!druxv!neal
From: neal@druxv.UUCP (Neal D. McBurnett)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: Cousins taxonomy: ambiguous!
Message-ID: <1090@druxv.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Oct-83 19:47:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: druxv.1090
Posted: Mon Oct 10 19:47:57 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Oct-83 21:00:31 EDT
References: <168@mi-cec.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 8

The problem with the whole scheme is that it's ambiguous.  To use Dan's
beautiful graphic example (168@mi-cec.UUCP), M and G are first cousins
once removed (G is M's parent's first cousin).  However, M also has
a first cousin once removed who is two generations YOUNGER than G:
T! (M's son's second cousin).  Is there any commonly accepted way to
resolve this ambiguity (which only arises when the relationship has
a level of removal)?  One possibility would be to make the relationship
uni-directional (e.g. always mention the "younger" cousin first).