I think the key the article mentioned was the use of unusual names as a proxy for unique names. A subset of the population persisted, based on name, implying p

I think the key the article mentioned was the use of unusual names as a proxy for unique names. A subset of the population persisted, based on name, implying persistence of this subset. There is statistical (and pretty strong statistical) persistence of a subset of the population. Now, the (total) population of families that display persistent social mobility is probably vastly greater than even the total population with unusual names, let alone the population of those with unusual names that display persistent social mobility. As Wangs and Zhangs can't be measured in this way, is there a reason that there these subsets of the population do not themselves contain hereditary lines that show persistence? Perhaps, but why? Maintaining a diversity across the country (unusual family surnames are often ethnically linked, and China has long promoted domestic ethnic diversity). At some points in history a family would abandon their name, though this happened in Europe too. > a wife will not take the husbands name The child most certainly will, a boy in particular. Along with being seen as the future of the family line, bearing the family name.