I think this is just a forceful way to affirm the author's claim that Berkeley's argument was not independently developed, i.e., developed in isolation from knowledge of Parmenides' argument, whether from the original text or by virtue of being passed down via contacts of Berkeley's (and likely modified along the way). So yes, it most certainly does affirm a historical connection, one that Berkeley might not be aware of, might disagree with, etc.
Note that the metaphor with pedigree is intrinsically weak, since unlike people, there is no technical sense in which an idea 'descends' from another in any natural sense of the word. (There is the idea of the 'meme', but that is more about the spread (replication) of an idea, then its evolution into another one. But for a more evolutionary/genetic model, consider this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics)
An example of the opposite phenomenon (i.e., independent development), the concept of the wheel has been said to have been independently invented over and over again. Also I believe the concept of the number zero was independently invented in India and in the Americas.
Finally, I think that the examples of the other poster here are not the best examples since, unlike Berkeley and Parmenides, it is almost unimaginable that two same (or similar) styles of American football could have been developed 'independently' for the simple reason that members of the American football community are not very separated in place or time. American football has only been around for 150 or so years, and has been played continuously in a place where travel and communication is easy. By contrast Berkeley and Parmenides are separated by about 2200 years, during which texts were frequently lost and areas of philosophical focus frequently changed.