This paper addresses the issue of variances in training modalities and how this is linked to one's personal experience of training and to one's analytic lineage. The author, who bases his reflections on discussions held during the yearly directors of training meeting of the North American Jungian Societies, suggests that, while each institute aims to provide an ‘ideal’ training programme for its candidates, the philosophy underlying how this ideal is defined depends, in large part, on the theoretical and philosophical orientation of the founding fathers and mothers. This results in a form of analytic lineage that necessarily impacts on the form and content of the ‘ideal’ programme. Shadow issues related to analytic lineage in the admissions procedures, case consultation, exam committees and review committees are presented. Motivation for why we choose to train and reflections on what makes an analyst ‘Jungian’ are explored.