Other than the one person marrying their aunt, the closest connection I can see is a second cousin marrying, something I believe is legal, healthy, and very common in that period. I'd bet portions of your family tree from two hundred years ago would look similar.

That tree's focused on only one person, Ben Stacy; his ancestors. The entire tree sounds a lot more connected:

> However, by the early 1960s, some members of the Fugate clan had begun to resent their cobalt-tinted skin. Not only did their skin mark them as different, but by that time, people had already begun to associate their skin color with the family’s history of inbreeding.

I think if any of us had a visual cue showing our familial ties people would also say we had a family history of inbreeding.

It’s called pedigree collapse. Your family tree grows exponentially to the second power with each generation. So a mere 50 generations ago, which is to say roughly 1000-1500 years ago, you had 1,125,899,906,842,624 slots in your family tree. Needless to say the vast majority of those slots don't have a unique person in them.

Mine certainly does. One quarter of my ancestry comes from an area of Lancashire which had three wealthy families -- the Cleggs, the Mercers, and the Taylors. Those three families intermarried almost exclusively from ca. 1400 until ca. 1850.

Family directed acyclic graph.

Hi exDM69, you posted in April about a proto (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22977095) that you might share. I am interested on how you did: "cache (sizeof(node) == cache line), no recursion, no memory allocation, no unbounded loops, no system calls, etc." Can you share please github name: lazalong