>Now, I understand that the Quakers counted their months from March thru >Feb, with (1mo) in his book meaning March, etc. Am I correct in that? >Can anyone tell me if when Cope used that terminology for a birth date >or death date, etc, that he always meant the March thru Feb thing?? I >know that further along in the book he begins to use the name of the >month. Also, how do you figure the years? i.e. if a birthdate is (11 >mo.) which would be January, do you assume the year he has is correct?? Sue, For me this is another problem with these genealogy programs. If you put in "2/10/1685" you get February 10, 1685 instead of "2/10/1685". Even if the source has it right, you have to convert it to make sure the program gets it right! I have an original copy of Cope's books and even some correspondence between him and Dutton's who were alive as he was putting his material together. I assume that Cope used the date as it was available to him from his source. If his source told him that so-and-so was born 2nd month, then he recorded it that way. It may not even have been clear to Cope or even his source whether that meant February or April. But I also assume that almost always the use of the term "2nd month" meant April. If it had meant "February" probably would have been reported that way. I have seen some of the original meeting records (where births, deaths, and marriages are recorded) and they are consistently reported by Cope in the correct Quaker usage. >Also, before I get too deep into it, does anyone have any glaring >mistakes that were made in his book??? I can prove no glaring errors in his book as far as the Pennsylvania Duttons are concerned. There are holes in the listings where he had no source. He doesn't seem to have indulged in "maybe the son of" or "reported to have three children" for those in the later generations. I've used many other genealogies written during the late 1800 period of flamorous family histories that have proven to be quite a mess. Cope's work looks quite good in comparison. You will note how careful he is in simply quoting Omerod, not stating that English material as fact. He makes no claim to have found a link between John Dutton and the Cheshire Duttons. He is also quite careful about his lack of info regarding the origins of the Mass Duttons. On the whole, I trust Cope's book to a high degree. He seems to be meticulous and where the info I have is different from his is simply where he made no statement at all. He lacked the information or any degree of certitude to include it. Doug Hall