This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: CelesteHolly51 Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.lawson/6860.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Well, as they teach doctors "if one hears hoof beats think horses not zebras" (unless you are in Africa! LOL) I did say that it could be possible that a Native American male took the Hooker name and could have had relatives/brothers or cousins who did not take that Hooker surname, but since the Crowe guy does not match other Crowes except that one Crowe line and he matches Hookers, and your Lawson does not match other Lawson lines but matches Hookers and that one Crowe, the most likely explanation is the Hooker (or male relative of that first one who took the Hooker name, if you like) fathered David. Since David was most likely born 1803 in an area where there were Hookers males - that seems most probable. Celeste Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.