Ancestry Magazine

Before reading any further, see if you can answer the question. And here is a hint—you’re looking for something that’s not there.
You’re looking for children who aren’t in the photo. You can tell the couple had at least five children by the gaps in the ages of the children pictured.
The style of the picture along with the style of dress of the people tells us that the photo was taken in the late 1800s or early 1900s. At this time, it was typical for a couple to have children every two to two-and-a-half years. Yet in this family, there is an age difference between the oldest and the middle child, and between the middle child and the baby that is significantly larger than this. Odds are good that the couple had at least one child in each of these gaps that they lost, either to miscarriage or to disease in early childhood. Counting the two children who were lost and the three shown in the picture, the couple probably had at least five children. Because of the large age difference between the two oldest girls in the photo, it is likely the couple had six children. It’s also possible that the parents had children who were born before the oldest daughter shown or after the picture was taken.
How does this help? By estimating the number of children you’re not seeing, you can use the gaps as a clue in matching the picture against the families in your tree. Suddenly you realize you’re not looking for a family with three children, you are looking for a family with at least five, with the two oldest living children widely spaced in age. If you can identify the family, you can then search the birth and death records for the missing children.
Remember, sometimes what is missing from a picture is the best clue to identifying who is in it.

Colleen Fitzpatrick, Ph.D., is the author of Forensic Genealogy and the co-author of DNA & Genealogy. She has been featured on NPR’s Talk of the Nation with Neil Conan.