I built an ancestor tree using the genealogytree package. At this point, this tree is becoming so large that I am a bit reluctant to start pasting code here. But I will try to explain the problem.

I start the tree in the \sandclock{} environment because the manual said "a sandclock can and should contain child and parent constructs", and I just figured my tree would go both up and down so I should use that. I have since come to realize that going both up and down a tree is not so easy. But that's the way it stands now.

I put myself as a parent. Then my dad as my parent, and so on. So my gggggreat-grandfather has a brother and a sister, with the same parents. Then, he has a half-brother with a different mother but same father.

To set up a half-brother relationship, I should use the union{} construct. But that only works in a child context. However, my gggggreat-grandfather is already set up as a parent, and his father is a parent, so where do I put the union construct? The union construct only works in a child{} environment for some reason, and in a parent{} construct the union gives a whole heap of errors.

Can I solve this without the use of the union{}? Or do I need to rework my entire (quite large) tree to grow in the opposite direction so everyone are defined as children?

  • You shouldn't post your large tree, but you should instead construct a smaller document (with fake people) that only contain enough to show the problem. (The solution to your problem will have such a document, and there's a much higher probability that someone will take the time to change your document to solve the problem than the someone will take the time to do it from scratch.) – pst Nov 20 '15 at 6:14
  • I looked into it, and found that the only way to use union is if the package creator changes the coding of the package. Each node can be moved around manually, so to speak, and new family trees can be painted on top of the old ones. By going this manual route, it is possible to solve this question. But it is a very cumbersome route to take, and it would be much preferable if the package maintainer updated the code to include support for parental unions. I haven't got example code because I haven't actually tried any of this yet, I have just worked it out in my head from re-reading the manual. – GaRyu Nov 21 '15 at 11:12

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.