Excuse me for not explaining my statements coherently in th last posting. Sarah Cason Ferebee published the American genealogical research done by her aunt Annie Adelia Ferebee in the 1930s. This is excellent work using nothing but primary sources. My mother, Marguerite Ferebee, (and many other cousins) helped in this research and I have a 1936 carbon copy in my library and the published work. When Sarah decided to publish it in the 1950s, she added some additional information, the research on John Fereby of Chipping Campden, Glocs., and, unfortunately, the information from Tully Bell Wilson's pamphlet. She repeated this data verbatim. She did not prove that John Ferebee, the immigrant, was descended from John Fereby of Chipping Campden and the infamous pedigree doesn't mention him. The real problems of the "Thomas deFerriby" pedigree are obvious on examination. No mention of sources are made. The men also sire their sons when they are 45 to 65 years old! This is an amazing feat during the medieval era. However, this pedigree does mention real people, but in a garbled manner. For example, it states that "Johannis Fereby dePalistry", Sherrif of Surrey was "born about 1410 and died about 1475". In truth, the will of John Feriby of Surrey was filed with the P.C.C. in 1441. He is first listed in Royal Household Accont Books in 1406-07 as Officer of the King's Victuals, an important post that would indicate that he was, at least, 30 years of age. He is mentioned in Curia Regis rolls as Sherrif of Surrey in 1426. There are many documents relating to him and nowhere is the epithet "de Palistry" seen. This is a term used about crusaders, the 1400s is awfully late for the Crusades. The 1561 Visitation of Surrey (p.156,Harleian ed.) shows that the Fereby family of Surrey dies out in male line with Agnes "the dau. and heir (sic) of Thomas Fereby. She married Thomas Day and died in 1496. The whole pedigree can be picked apart in this manner, but I'll spare you the tedium. The real problem is that the immigrant, John Ferebee, doesn't reveal himself in the parish records and wills of the 1600s. Can you cite clear evidence of his parents or birthplace?