How do I sort out these people?

Question

 

On the linked page [https://www.familysearch.org/search/trees#count=20&query=%2Bsurname%3ACornish~%20%2Bfather_givenname%3AElisha~%20%2Bfather_surname%3ACornish~%20%2Bmother_givenname%3AHepzibah~%20%2Bmother_surname%3AHumphrey~&offset=0]  and the next page (page 2) are a number of Hepzibah and Elizabeth Cornish.  (One Hepzibah lived thee months, (born 1741) and the Elizabeth born in 1746 is not in question)   the others are all confused. I am concerned with the people born 4-11 Nov 1742, some named Elizabeth, some named Hepzibah, some named both.

 

The only  conclusion I have drawn Is that there were twins born in 1742 and one of  the dates, probably the 11 Nov was a transcription error.

 

I understand that errors are possible, if this is an error, how do I deal with it?  What other conclusions are possible.

 

Tom (Bredehoft-6)

Comments

The Elizabeth Cornish born 1746 married Elijah Wilcox, perhaps some genealogist in the past confused things. The documentation for this was done before the internet existed....

---

Tom - I would treat any information on familysearch submitted by LDS members with a fair degree of skepticism.  It really has no greater standing than any other user defined tree on Ancestry - it appears to have greater standing because of the website on which it is presented but I think you need to remember why it is there.
(not an official definition but a reasonable one - http://wellbehavedmormonwoman.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/why-do-mormons-baptize-dead-people.html)
If any LDS members are reading this please do not be offended but my personal experience is that LDS member submitted trees tend to include more relatives rather than less, and sometimes as a result of pure conjecture rather than painstaking research of historic documentation.  It is understandable when you consider that someone failing to include a distant ancestor or cousin in their tree is effectively "denying them proxy baptism and thus entry into the kingdom of heaven".  I believe this weight of responsibility would colour most researchers' view and cause them to include more relatives rather than less.  Just my two cents worth!

Answer 1

Yes those user submitted pedigrees are hardest to research as the sources are not available to view.

And frequently in colonial times - one record is the birth and another is the baptism at a local church, and sometimes only a baptism is recorded and no birth record, and finally, sometimes the information comes from a gravestone - which might just say aged x yrs, so someone calculated the birth year.  

You might want to see if you can locate this source:  Simsbury, CT: Vital Records, 1665-1886  -  and see if you can clarify any of the above.

Comments

I have just that source, only I've got it second hand. Its pretty straight forward, the confusion came for what appears to be multiple names for the same person. I've stayed with my source, (see Sharp-661) and will depend on that.  Thanks for reinforcing my gut feelings.

Answer 2

Found the source book for this family.  Not sure it will help.  Only one Elizabeth.

http://archive.org/stream/historyandgenea00corngoog#page/n10/mode/2up

The history and genealogy of the Cornish families in America (1907)

4^th Generation p. 16

(17) Sergt. ELISHA CORNISH  b. June 6, 1722; d. April 27, 1794;

m. 1st Hepsibah (dau. Charles) HUMPHREY, Sept. 25, 1740 (she b. , 1724; d. Feb. 25, 1756);

m. 2d Mary (dau. Benjamin) DYER, Aug. 31, 1756 (she b. ; d. Oct. 21, 1775); m. 3d Charity (dau. John PETTIBONE and widow of Sylvanus) Humphrey, June 2,

1776. She b. June 30, 1744; d. Oct. 6, 1803. She m.  June 14, 1799, Dr. Amasa Case. 

He was a farmer, and one of the leading citizens of Simsbury, Conn., where he resided.

Children (by 1st wife) :

60 Hepsibah, b. Aug. 27, 1741; d. Dec. 17, 1741.

61 Hepsibah, 6. Nov. 4, 1742; d. , 1800; m. Theophilus Humphrey, 1761. He 5. 1744; d. 1826.

62 JAMES, 6. Dec. 16, 1744.

63 Elzabeth, b. May 8, 1746; d. Oct. 22, 1840; m. Elijah Wilcox, of Simsbury.

64 ELISHA, 6. Dec. 7, 1748.

There are more generations with bmd!

 

Comments

Thanks, Chris, that concurs with the information I have from Simsbury.
I'm fast learning what sources I can trust.

Yes, there are many more generations, fore and aft.