Looking at my NYC birth certificates again it appears the forms changed c. 1890. I have a birth certificate from March 1889 and it asks number of child born to this mother 1,2,3,4... and then the number of them now alive. The April 1890 birth certificate asked number of previous children and the number still living in all (including the newborn).

This touches on one of the most stimulating challenges I have come across in my own family history. I am intrigued, probably beyond all normal levels, so I feel compelled to share every last detail with you, hoping that I am not the only person out there who gets this wrapped up in this stuff :) I also hope someone else can see possibilities that I have overlooked! In my research, I figured out that my great-grandparents had twins in NYC in 1891. These two children were born on 16 Oct 1891, but it seems that one died almost immediately. The birth certificates both list the place of birth the same as they list parents Kate and Bryan Gaughran’s residence, 540 W 42 St. What seems to be the certificate for the first birth [no. 36644] lists no first name: in two different locations, there is a dash drawn in for the child’s first name. This certificate lists 5 previous births and 6 living children: the birth was reported and the certificate was filed 19 Oct by J. A. Sanders, MD, at 249 W 42 St. Maybe, as the paperwork was filed the day after the birth, the “how many living in all” number is higher than the “number of previous children” number because of the second of the twins having been born before the paperwork was filled out for this first birth. What seems to be the certificate for the second birth [no. 36820] names the child Charles. It lists 6 previous children and 4 now living: it seems like two children have died in the past day: perhaps grief led to this confusion. The birth was recorded on 18 Oct, and it was filed on 20 Oct by A. A. Mohny or Molony at 262 W 42 St, who also signed the death certificates of siblings John and Eugene in 1885 as well as a Thomas's death certificate in 1892: this Thomas was 14 months old at death, making him one of the two babies from this birth. I think the first child from this birth died before his birth was recorded—he was probably seen by a physician on the 19th who reported his birth before his death, hence the “6 now living with 5 previous births” report; the second baby from this birth must have started life as Charles and ended life as Thomas. There is no record of the first baby’s burial in the family cemetery plot with siblings and grandmother, nor have I been able to locate a corresponding death certificate; however, there are both a death certificate and a burial record for fourteen month-old Thomas fourteen months later. Maybe physicians intervened in some way regarding the deceased first baby. I cannot find the family in the 1900 census, but in the 1910 census Kate lists 8 children born and 4 living--all 4 live with their parents in 1910. My next step should be to find baptismal records, but I have not been successful so far at locating correct parishes for these records. I am in the process of trying to make phone contact with the correct person at Holy Cross; however, I am on west coast time, and my work schedule makes it difficult to catch her after 4:30 her time as the parish has indicated will be necessary. Whew! Hope some of you have read this far. Cathy Michelle and Kevin Cassidy <kmct@earthlink.net> wrote: Looking at my NYC birth certificates again it appears the forms changed c. 1890. I have a birth certificate from March 1889 and it asks number of child born to this mother 1,2,3,4... and then the number of them now alive. The April 1890 birth certificate asked number of previous children and the number still living in all (including the newborn). ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to IRISH-NEW-YORK-CITY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --------------------------------- Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

Working from knowns to unknowns we have Kate and Bryan Gaughran at 540 West 42nd Street Twins are delivered on 16 Oct 1891. Birth certificate #36644 is for a nameless child. This is not so uncommon as the doctor may not know the family that well and the parents may not have decided. (I have a family with 6 kids born between 1891-1901, 4 have birth certificates but only the 1901 has a name. The 1891, 1896 and 1898 did not. Ironically these three nameless children lived to adulthood while the 1892 and 1894 that did not have birth certificates at all and the named one in 1901 all die before they are six-months-old. They lived in this same neighborhood. The 1891 and 1892 were baptized at Holy Cross, 1894, 1896 and 1898 were baptized at St. Raphael. The 1901 was baptized at Sacred Heart.) There were five previous births and six living children. This means that there were children 1,2,3,4 and 5 when 6 was born. If 6 is the first born twin and takes a breath that is still true. One would expect that the second twin would be born momentarily and then the numbers are six previous births including the now 2 minute old baby even if he has already died and then 7 if twin 1/baby 6 is alive and 6 still living if twin 1/baby 6 has passed away. There is a chance that the doctor added wrong but the question asked was number of children born before this new baby. If none of your kids die the second number will always be higher because the new baby is not in the first part but is in the second. Babies that later die still count for number of previous births but not for number still living. Birth certificate #36820 for Charles says 6 previous children but only 4 now living. There may have been confusion but another child may have died this day as well. Highly unlikely since twins are born within moments unless something went very differently. There were no Gaughrans that died according to the 1891 death index online but that does not mean that it was not recorded. Below is the Thomas citation you mention. Dr. Molony had cared for the family before and he may have given more reliable information than Dr. Sanders. Perhaps Dr. Sanders was the only doctor they could find and Dr. Molony came around before the birth was over and delivered the second twin. If two doctors were filing the birth of twins that would nicely explain why they do not have sequential birth certificate numbers. Dr. Molony kept being their doctor as he handled the death of Thomas in 1892. Gaughran Thomas 14 m Dec 26 1892 #43826 Manhattan 1891 - 1892 People often changed the names of children. I have a birth certificate for Allan in 1890 but in the Police Census and thereafter he is Francis. I just thought though what is your basis for them being twins? Maybe Dr. Sanders delivered and reported the birth of a single child. The baby was sick or Dr. Molony came by to check on him and wanted to make sure the birth was registered and he registered it himself. One event was possibly recorded by two doctors. It is rather odd that there is no burial information. I would think either there was no second baby at all or maybe he did not die but was institutionalized. Especially by 1891 the death certificates are statistically complete. Calvary etc. would not dream of burying a kid without a death certificate by 1891. St. Raphael was just south of them at 541 West 41st Street. This is one of the few parishes that has records available through the FHL in Salt Lake City. For $5.50 you can see a microfilm of the original baptismal register yourself. You might even find other Gaughran children baptized in these records. Ellen at Holy Cross is a gem. The fee is $10 per request. Send a SASE too. There is an index so she is very quick and information is reliable. As for full notations and see if there is a notation stating Gemini in the margins.