Is predecessor still in use this way? Today we tend to use ancestor?

The terms can definitely overlap. Predecessors are the ones who came before you. Ancestors are the ones who you share a bloodline and a family history with, and who came and passed away long before your existence. The word predecessor specifically do not suggest family ties, but just someone or something that came before the the person or object used in comparison. However, under the right context, predecessor can be used synonymously with ancestor.

Thank you.

I'm not so sure about that.

I would only use ancestor where there is a blood relation, predecessor where there is not.

In the passage above, predecessors can used synonymously with the word ancestors, given the context. As I already pointed out, context is key.

Many dictionaries give 'ancestor' as one meaning of 'predecessor', including Collins English Dictionary:

And as I pointed out, I believe that is too loose. An error. The words are not synonymous, not here at any rate.

mookbark

I would take your opinion on this matter seriously if you could back up your assertions.
Enlighten me, if you will, as to what you think is conveyed by the words "predecessors came from Shropshire, England" if the 'ancestors' is not synonymous with 'predecessors' in the passage here.

Most of the dictionaries I checked, around seven I think, didn't have that #3 meaning of ancestor, forefather, although I must say that, personally, I have believed that to be one of the definitions for it.

Two dictionaries, MW and AHD stated that the ancestor, forefather meaning was archaic. That surprised me too.

There certainly isn't any shortage of the word being used with this meaning in a Google exact phrase search, English only, for "predecessors were from".

When we do the same search, with "predecessors came from", there is a greater concentration of the ancestor, forefather meaning.

It is perfectly understandable and acceptable to this pair of ears. It has a kind of 18th / 19th century feel, I must say, although the words quoted come from the biography of Walcott by Yochelson published in 1967.

Charles Doolittle Walcott (March 31, 1850 – February 9, 1927) was an American invertebrate paleontologist. He became Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution in 1907 and served as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1923. He was an advisor to President Theodore Roosevelt.

If I may say so, you seem to have constructed a circular argument. Of course the author's meaning is clear. The context makes it so, as you earlier suggested.
That is not the point at issue; at least, that is not the point I was making.
Up to this point, I had not consulted a dictionary. But now that I have, I see from my Shorter Oxford that the "ancestor" meaning of "predecessor" came from ME, and is now rare. I personally, as stated, would not use it.
The origin of the meaning of "predecessor" is of course, someone who has pre-deceased you, and that was originally (ME) quite a logical synonym for "ancestor"- but of course has no definite link to a blood relationship. For example, my predecessor in a post probably was not related to me.

I personally think it useful to keep the two meanings separate.

Nice of you to repeat what Skar just said.

I think the author of the quoted piece was probably well aware of the somewhat old-fashioned status of 'predecessors' used as a synonym for 'ancestors'. I wonder if he used to use it to avoid repeating 'ancestor' twice in a short space. He might have chosen 'forebears' I suppose.

There is a practice called 'elegant variation', much frowned upon by certain authorities, where a writer will seek to avoid repeating words by sprinkling a piece with synonyms e.g. The King went to Berlin last week. While he was there the monarch spoke of the great friendship between Germany and our country. The Berliners gave a hearty welcome to the crowned head and his carriage was cheered as it passed through the streets of the Teutonic capital.

Some UK newspaper sub-editors are said to call these variations 'povs' which is short for 'popular orange vegetables'. The story goes that the phrase was found in, and excised from, a story about carrots in the Liverpool Daily Echo. 'Elongated yellow fruit" is reputed to have appeared in a story about bananas in the Boston Transcript.

The word "elegant" had a former, now largely obsolete meaning, “precious over-refinement”.

However, it cannot be denied that 'ancestor' and 'predecessor' can overlap in meaning. The Romans, are in a certain sense, my ancestors and predecessors.

Is there a point to this remark? We are talking about the meanings of words, not what we suppose the author to have been intending.
I refer you to the original question: that is what I was answering.

The dictionaries quoted above deny it, so you don't need to agree with me.

Expressions appearing in dictionaries and grammars may not be suitable for use in all circumstances because they are not the only grammatical forms.
These two terms can be overlapping but not exactly synonymous, as I mentioned before, 'predecessor' usually do not suggest family ties. However, I don't see a valid reason to keep these two words separate in all cases, especially when there is an opportunity to alternate between these two words with similar connotation without degrading the the meaning of the sentence, or compromising comprehension.

That sort of "alternation" is often a sign of a poor writer, as I hinted above. Usually it would be better to re-write the piece, especially if the synonymity is doubtful, controversial or archaic.

The amusing element of your post above is that repulsion towards repetition seems to carry from one language to another. I find myself having to remind myself that in English, I can and indeed should repeat the same words over and over - even if it still sounds awkward, but what has to be done has to be, ummm, achieved.
In French, for instance, this alternation is seen as a sign of a good writer, and repetition of the same words in close proximity is seen as bad prose, and somewhat childish.
That is not to say, that in english, variation can be a bad thing when appropriate synonyms are substituted. Breaking the mold of repetition is not necessarily a sign of a poor writer. In this passage, the synonym was appropriately applied, even if the synonymous nature of the linguistic meaning between 'predecessor' and 'ancestor' is archaic.

It is seen as bad in English. It tires the reader if used unnecessarily, and as you note is typical of the productions of children at a certain level of literacy.