Last Names: Why paternal for family lines?

[OIO]

As far as I know, last names in almost every culture follow the paternal bloodline. Aka, Mr. Sheep marries Mrs. Fleece, their children will get the father's last name instead of the mother's last name.

I believe this is because sociologically, these cultures have been male-dominated.

If a last name is used to keep track of a blood line, then only the woman's last name should be used. The reason is simple:

The only DNA that is virtually unchangeable throught the generations is the mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondria is a symbiotic organism that "slipped" into our cellullar structures millenia ago, and as such, when the human host reproduces, the mitochondrial DNA is not mixed, it remains the same...from mother to daughter, to son.. and only the daughter would pass the same mitochondria to the next generation.

Mitochondrial DNA only changes through mutation, induced by the enviroment (radiation, etc).

So, with this little obscure fact, do you folks think that using the woman's last name be a better way of keeping track of bloodlines?

[Mickey1992]

"So, with this little obscure fact, do you folks think that using the woman's last name be a better way of keeping track of bloodlines?"

Yes, but only if the woman's last name is her mother's last name.

[Jester]

Not entirely true.

In hearldric practice both the male and female family lines are kept track of and incorporated into the Family Crest for the offspring in some cases. Some of these crests are very inticate and are divided into many sections to cover the history of the blood line.

Only one problem, this doesn't apply to 99% of us peons that are not of noble birth. In that case we get the "Generic" coat of arms like you see mainly today as most took the last names of the Lord whose land they lived on.

[Wlfgng]

beat me to it...

ours tracks Men though  (McGreggor)

[OIO]

How so mikey?

I mean, the way I see it, regardless of what you do, whatever defines a male's descendants becomes lost in a few generations, as whatever defined a descendant as "your" descendant becomes diluted more and more until it becomes insignificant.

Today you can determine family relationship, but theres no way to say exactly "hey you're the direct male descendant of this guy that lived 5000 years ago".. only "yeah, youre related, but we dont know if you're his great great great great grandson or his great great great cousin once removed".

I can understand if it was a sort of ego thing.. you know, "my son has to have my last name" and such... but does it really matter? I, as a man, would not consider using my mom's last name as dishonoring my father, im 50% both. For family tree/record keeping purposes, the woman's last name/mitochondrial DNA is the one thing that remains fairly constant over thousands of years.


A few years back, some scientists used this mitochondrial DNA to trace the direct female ancestors of almost ALL human beings on this planet... to THREE female lines dated more than a million years ago. Thats amazing.

IMO, naming should be FirstName MaternalName PaternalName , that way no history or identity is lost.

Andy: Im not familiar with heraldry or coat-of-arms. Last I heard it was a pictograph used in medieval times. Anyway, im talking about a MODERN way to keep track of them

[john9001]

i thought hispanics used the fathers name as middle name and mothers as last name.

[OIO]

Im hispanic and no.

We use the same system you use. However, we do include our mother's last name as our "second last name" in documents.

Aka, Firstname paternalname maternalname.

For bloodline tracking methods though, we use the paternal line, just like you do.

If hollywood did research , they wouldve correctly portrayed this guy by:

"Ay ahm indigo montoya ferreira , ju keeled my fadder, pripear tu dai!"

[Mickey1992]

Sorry, I was trying to be funny.  I was pointing out that even if I took my mother's last name, it is really my GRANDFATHER's last name.

"IMO, naming should be FirstName MaternalName PaternalName , that way no history or identity is lost."

I have a friend who's wife is one of 3 daughters, with no brothers.  They did exactly that, and their son's name is FirstName MaternalName PaternalName.

I come from a line of Skagenberg's that is only 4 generations deep.  The family name was really Skagerberg, but during the citizenship process, a clerk spelled my Great-Grandfather's name wrong.  The sad thing is that my Grandfather and his siblings never had any sons.  So the family name will disappear when his generation is gone.