I still think the "heritage" fad pretty pointless, since most people bother more about a name than about who the real forebears were. We all have 2 parents, but usally only one name. Why exclude one half of the genes in every generation?
Limiting research to the male ancestors would mean that one has very few genes in common with those of two or three generations generations back. You have half your father's genes, 1/4 of his father's, 1/8 of his grandfather's, etc. Sounds like homeopathy; if you believe in it, it will work!
What about your mother's family? and her mother's and grandmother's? You may not bear their name, but you have just as much of their "blood".

As jordanjm wrote :
> I think some families have already seen some dilution.

Unless you practice incest or parthenogenesis (cloning), all families will have mixed "blood", each generation losing some genes and gaining others.

Kiltshot wrote :
> My opinion may be influenced by the attitudes of people around me who have set their minds on where they want to go and not where they came from.

That makes sense to me.

Martin