I just wanted to echo both Warren's view that such a family tree project would be very useful and Pete's view that doing such a project is extremely complex. I think Greg's lengthy examples involving Hayek point that out. One more layer of complexity aside from Pete's point about official "teachers" versus de facto influences: one would also need to look at whether the "students" were genuinely influenced by the "teacher" or whether they had an insight original to themselves which they later understood (perhaps incorrectly) to be derived from the supposed "teacher." I don't want to rehash a running debate that Pete, Greg, and I have been engaged in on the AustrianEcon list, but if some of the folks that Greg claims are influenced by Hayek have really misunderstood his point, do we still count that as an "influence"? The ongoing debate on the Austrian lineage of Lucas's macroeconomics is a case in point. On Greg's conception of it, Lucas should have a branch on the Hayek tree. Personally, I'm not convinced. At some point, when the tree has branches going everywhere, the project loses some of its value. Steven Horwitz Eggleston Associate Professor of Economics St. Lawrence University Canton, NY 13617 TEL (315) 379-5731 FAX (315) 379-5819 EMAIL [log in to unmask]