One example of the growth and development of familiar scholarship can be found in the scholarly publication, ''Folklore''. ''FOlklore'' has consistantly contributed articles on superstition from England and early modern Europe. In the first decades of the 20th Century, the witches familiar was only superficially mentioned as "niggets" which were "creepy-crawly things that witches kept all over them."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Times |first=The |authorlink=The Times
|title=Superstition in Essex: A Witch and Her Niggets |journal=Folklore |volume=27 |year=1916 |pages=3 }}</ref>
Soon after, the scholarship that was at best superficial was, over the first half of the century, contributed greatly to by the scholar Margaret Murray. Her work delved into the variation of the familiar found in witchcraft practices. The majority of her sources were trial records and demonological texts. By the year 2000, there hasn't been a major contributor to the scholarship of the level that Murray attained but there have been some advancements. Much hasn't changed from the contributions of Keith Tomas in 1970 to Emma Wilby writing in 2000. There has been a more historical, sociological approach to familiar scholarship. Questions concerning uses, associations with and regional comparisons and contrasts have contributed to the depth of familiar scholarship. <!--I will add the citations to my sources shortly. ~User:Davidalvsgoliath-->
