Hi both Ingrid you were right with the first letter being I (for Indexing in this case) The letter "I" batches are the later batches entered onto the IGI which in their wisdom they have not included a source for but are extractions from Parish Registers, which one is the problem Copied from a Yorksgen posting (the same answer I got) "Originally batches were templates called -M- for marriage records (M00000-0) and -C- (C00000-0) for christening records. Then they designed a new template that could do marriages, christenings and deaths, all in the same batch. It was named the Indexing template, so the -I- stands for indexing. Most batches are done on the Indexing 5 template now, (I00000-0). There have been a few other batch designations, but most have been done with these three." You have done the wisest thing in e mailing the LDS as they do have information on them, if only they had done the sensible thing and added the source? It would have saved them time in answering enquiries in these batches as I have asked about several of them I wonder in this case if they might appear on Record Search Pilot? I have not looked but perhaps someone with an interest there already has? Best wishes Nivard Ovington, in Cornwall (UK) > Hi Harold, > > Just a small point, but I suspect one which may indicate the answer to > the mystery of this entry - the Batch number starts with the capital > letter I for ice-cream not the number one. I am afraid I do not know > enough about the inner workings of the IGI to know what the I > indicates, but it will indicate a certain type of record. If you look > at the batch as a whole, all the entries I saw were female. Similarly > for the much larger batch I024951. There is no film number (which > would enable us to check the film catalogue) or statement this these > are patron submissions, so I am a bit baffled. I wondered momentarily > if they were extracted from the 1881 census (as some entries are), > however in that case baptism dates would not be listed. > > Someone more familiar with the IGI may be able to assist. It has made > me curious however, so I have emailed the Familysearch website with a > brief query asking about the origins of batch I045075. > > By the way, is there a typo in your dates? If the two Elizabeths are > the same, then she would have been baptised before she was born. > > Ingrid