Very well said, Myra.
Your "The query had simply asked if the maiden name MIGHT HAVE BEEN Jones (or whatever)" rang a bell.
For one of my ancestral families, in part [the current posted tree versions go off into the wild blue yonder] a similar speculative-question query is given as source (only partial citation is given, but I tracked it down via kindness of the newsletter's long-ago editor). The tree versions jump a Mass.-Rhode Island couple to Kent Co., DE in the middle of the 18th century, but slyly omit all the children of the actual couple except one daughter bearing the same name as a person named in a Kent Co. will. The tree with 'sources' given does mention some New England sources that give births of the deleted children. I can only suppose that the other children were deleted because they were not named in the aforesaid will.
Thus do trees not only bear old wrong speculation, but sometimes a really dishonest presentation. It is sad, but the existence of such nonsense all over the web does not affect my own research or prompt any adrenalin-pumped reaction.
Best just leave it in the dust with a "tsk".