Lars-

Hmmm. Lars, there's a saying for what I see your reasoning being "picking at nits".  In 
the AM&J "Flippism" story, THAT was their introduction the the Duck Universe, and we are 
told numerous times thereafter that they ARE Daisy's nieces, so I don't see where it's a 
stretch to imagine the REASON they were in Daisy's sister's apartment was because they 
WERE/ARE Daisy's sister's daughters.  It's not an extreme leap in logic or even 
philosphical dilemma.  It appears to be the intention of the story and I can easily 
imagine most people would accept the inferrence.  Not EVERY little detail needs to be 
spelled out when some things should be apparent or obvious.  Of course, I could imagine, 
also, that some creator could pick up on this thread and intentionally create a story 
that re-creates that scene or worse yet, ignores it altogether, in favor of a new version 
that CLEARLY shows Daisy's sister is NOT the mother of AM&J... which seems silly, but if 
it gives them the clarity of opinion and final say, then that will be the reason to do it.

As for the DUCK FAMILY TREES, I think the real reason none of the LATER versions 
specifically designated Daisy & AM&J's placement is because there are too many gaps in 
our basic understanding of how she relates.  I see no reason why the one presented 
in "Dell Giant: Uncle Donald and His Nephews, Family Fun" #38 (1960) should be discarded 
just because it has it's share of vagueness.  I can't imagine why the writer/artist would 
have created a Family Tree that lies about such a minor detail when the lie was not 
important to the story.  And we are still left with the fact that Daisy and AM&J have 
consistently been treated as part of the DUCK FAMILY and not just apparent "guests" 
or "tag-a-longs" as if they were Donald's Date or something.  I don't think it's a 
stretch of the imagination that it is intentional that Daisy and the girls are treated as 
actual members of the Family.  I think consistency should be a good guage as well as 
any "tree" that has yet to tackle the finer details.   

As for Ludwig not being on the tree, I believe he was created around that same time 
period, and I'm sure it wasn't a regular part of the "Duck Lore" yet."  I agree he should 
be there, and I'm perfectly fine with Rosa's explanation as well.  The whole "Continuity 
Game" is really a more recent phenomenon, mostly created by us fans demanding some 
clearer details on such issues.  I agree that Ludwig belongs on the Family Tree, but I 
also believe that Daisy & the girls fairly obvious treatment by creators has earned their 
place time and again.  It's not an assumption by some fans as much as it is an obvious 
conclusion.

Wouldn't you agree? Or have I been reading these comics wrong all these years? ;-)  

Granted, there's still the issue of Gyro on the Tree... That doesn't make sense to me, 
and other than the few trees I've seen sporting his name and the fact that he does 
ocassionally show up at a Family Reunion, that I know of that make him a Duck.  You could 
argue that there have been other "guests" at Duck Family gathering, including Mickey, 
Minnie and Goofy, as well.  Does that mean they are Ducks too?  No, there's been no story 
logic that demonstrates or infers anywhere, that they are considered Ducks.  Daisy and 
the Girls are "treated" by most creators over the past half century (or so) as Duck 
Family members, Mickey, Goofy and others are not.  And we don't need to discuss the "term 
of endearment" that has HD&L calling Mickey "Unca Mickey" as we know that doesn't count, 
and is never meant to have counted.  We've covered THAT topic in previous discussions on 
this group.  There is a tree that shows Magica, Gyro and Glomgold on the tree (Van 
Horn's), but I don't believe that has ever been handled as anything more than a work of 
art.  That said, we are told that Rockerduck and Scrooge are related through their shared 
Aunt Eider (different from the "male" Eider Duck that is related to Fethry & 
Whitewater)... though that does remind me, that there are LOTS of relatives, even re-
occurring ones, not listed on trees but are considered legitimate relations (Douglas, 
Rumpus, Gideon and Scrooge's look-alike "beggar" cousin) are not typically listed, but 
SHOULD be.  

Basically, the only reason I know that Daisy is not listed is because we don't know what 
branch she belongs to.  Sure the surname "Duck" should help, but no creator has yet 
tackled her placement, or ret-conned her out of the Family. ;-)

Thanks,

Rich 
xephyr@cwnet.com

From: "Lars Jensen" lpj@forfatter.dk>
>Rich wrote:
>>>> Daisy's nieces, April, May & June are the daughters of Daisy's
>>>> never officially seen sister.
>>>
>>> What's your source for this?
>>
>> Lars you have me doubting myself now, but I could have sworn
>> that Daisy makes a passing mention of her "sister" in the
>> Neice's introduction story
>
>Yeah, in that story Donald arrives at an apartment where he finds
>Daisy who is visiting her sister. April, May and June are also
>present in the apartment. We don't actually learn whether Daisy's
>sister is AMJ's mom, though.
>
>>>> AM&J and HD&L are supposedly cousins, which means Daisy
>>>> & Donald are also cousins, as are Daisy & Gladstone.
>>>
>>> What's your source for this?
>>
>> In this, I am using the word "SUPPOSEDLY" as there is only
>> subtle sourcing for this conclusion, such as "Dell Giant: Uncle
>> Donald and His Nephews, Family Fun" #38 (1960) where they are
>> all clearly listed on the Duck Family Tree, as well as being in
>> attendance at Grandma Duck's ranch house for a "Family Reunion."
>> So they ARE related, just how closely is not yet designated.
>> I'm fine with them being "distant" cousins all, but the FAMILY
>> TREES seem to indicate a much closer relationship.  I beleive
>> there are other Family Trees depicting the relationships also
>> (Gilles Maurice has a pretty good list of the PUBLISHED Trees on
>> his site, though I know he also has some unofficial sources,
>> too:
>> http://goofy313g.free.fr/calisota_online/trees/index.html).
>
>OK, I've now visited Gilles' site. And it's a great informative
>site, but... If I only look at Duck family trees that have been
>published by a Disney licensee and ignore the ones I don't know
>how to interpret, I'm left with 3 trees, as far as I can tell.
>Those trees (which are very similar to each other) all have the
>same problem: according to them, Ludwig Von Drake isn't Donald's
>uncle. Since we know he is (Walt told us so), those trees cannot
>be relied on for correct information. Which means that as far as I
>can tell there really is no proof that Daisy, Donald, Gladstone
>and AMJ all dream of being involved with a first cousin.
>
>Lars 


---- Msg sent via CWNet - http://www.cwnet.com/

