In a message dated 3/3/99 3:22:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, KyFoxFamily <rfox@mis.net> writes: << Actually, we need to be careful about making the assumption that children listed with a head of household in the 1870 census are biological children. That census was taken before relationships were given. The child could be a cousin or nephew or whatever. But the 1850-1870 censuses do give us a list of possibilities and some leads on children, for sure. >> A very wise heads-up. Thanks for containing me before I went hog-wild. BTW: I have had the pleasure of several private emails with a supreme amount of research on the BUCKLER, WIMSATTS, DANTS families already done. Luck like this never rained in such abundance on any of the MURPHY lines I'm investigating. Goes to show any throw into the pond is worth it. Thanks to everyone who has replied (and keep those letters coming, cousins!) DJMurphy Louisville, KY DJMurphy79@aol.com