Apologies for the long post! I know Amsterdam Beth Haim index cards have been discussed here at various times, but I cannot locate a clear answer to my question. I have attached four cards, one each for Daniel v Moses Oeb Brandao and his wife Sara Touro, and one each for for Moses v Daniel Oeb Brandao and his wife Ester v Abraham de Paz. Based on (a) the statement in Daniel's card that Daniel - who died in the year 5530 - had a son named Moses who died in the year 5549 ("ov. 5549"), and (b) the statement in Moses's card that Moses - who died in 5549 - had a father who died in 5530 ("vader verm ov. 5530"), it is clear that the compilers of the index believe Daniel and Moses are father and son. However, I cannot discern any reason why this is so, looking at just the card itself. Am I missing something? Is the assertion based on the patronym used for Moses in his burial record and his ketubah? These records only state that Moses is the son of a Daniel, not necessarily this particular Daniel.Although I have found the cards to be mostly correct when I can locate other documents to confirm their assertions (mostly for the 19th century on), that is not always the case. It seems the risk of error increases as the subject individuals become poorer - like the members of this "family - since the likelihood of confirming the entries in other sources decreases (particularly for the 18th century and earlier). Thanks.