Hi Ruy Let me answer paragraph by paragraph. First of all, thank you for all your observances. This is precisely why I wrote to this list. I really needed another point of view. <<The will of David Tompkins is troubling because it gives Rhoda two different last names. Though this could have been a mental mistake or a transcription mistake, on the surface it looks as though there might be two different Rhodas here, and the fact that David mentions yet a third (Rhoda Waldron) perhaps indicates that Rhoda was a common name in this time, place, and family. And yet there is that 1855 census which does in fact seem to indicate that the two Rhodas (Lavare and Clarke) are the same person... Does that census name the relationships, by the way, or are you presuming them? If it names the relationships, that helps, but otherwise the census record strikes me as not quite strong enough on its own.>> The will of David Tompkins is in error on another account. He lists his sister as Rhoda Waldron when her name was actually Rhoda Knight. She had married John Knight, son of Waldron Knight. My current belief, on the assumption that my Rhoda is David's niece, is that my Rhoda was named for David and Mary's sister Rhoda. As for the 1855 census, I didn't see what notation was made for Rhoda Clark. However, Mary Manchester was listed as mother and Arnold Lavare and William Lavare were listed as mariners. I am descended from William and I knew he was a mariner. Neither Arnold (age 35) nor William (age 32) were married at this point. <<Perhaps you could give some more of the info from the two marriage records of Rhoda as well as what the census record actually says. Does her second one, for example, indicate that she was the widow of Epaphroditus Lavare? Or does it give her name as Rhoda Lavare, daughter of Gilbert Tompkins and Mary? Or does her gravestone or death record somehow indicate that the same Rhoda married the two men?>> I don't have in front of me the paper copies from MA Vitals to 1850, Westport, but it lists a marriage of Rhoda Manchester to Epaphroditus Lavare on Nov. 7, 1816. Then it lists Mrs. Rhoda Levere (that name has been spelled any number of ways) marrying James Clark of Little Compton on Oct. 10, 1829. Under the deaths, it lists Epaphroditus Lavare as "lost at sea" in September, 1825, and "in lot with" William Vinal. Finally, I have personally been to the Rural Cemetery in New Bedford and have seen Rhoda's stone and the stone erected in the memory of Epaphroditus. Rhoda's stone says, "Rhoda, widow of Epaphroditus Lavare and widow of James Clarke." Rhoda's stone has "Mother" on the top and Epaphroditus has "Father." Rhoda is in the plot of William Vinal, who was her son-in-law. Apparently, Rhoda was pregnant with Lavinia Lavare when Epaphroditus was lost because Lavinia Lavare was born in the early months of 1826. I never knew of her existence until I went to the cemetery and saw the cemetery records. I also never knew about another daughter born to Rhoda and James Clarke until very recently. Neither Lavinia Lavare nor Mary Anna Clarke are listed in the Westport vitals. And neither of them are in the 1855 census. And yes, I have been to Westport to check personally. I understand that Mary Anna is listed in the Westport 1850 census as age 13 living with her mother Rhoda Clark. I didn't look at that census. It came from the descendant of Mary Anna. <<Further, what evidence do you have that the David Tompkins who mentions all the Rhodas is the son of the Micah you're after? Finally, I seem to recall reading somewhere about potential problems in Little Compton Families, but I can't remember where. Perhaps I'm imagining things, or perhaps someone else on the list will be able to provide more info.>> I'm sure, as with all published genealogies, there are mistakes in Little Compton families. Right now, I have that book and I saw the Tompkins genealogy book in Little Compton yesterday, as my proofs that David is a son of Micah Tompkins. <<As a suggestion, do you know if there are Little Compton church records somewhere out there that might provide Mary's maiden name?>> Right now, no, I don't. <<Good luck with this. Most of the info you provide is consistent with your theory, but my own view is that you need a little more info to support it. In particular, you need to prove fairly strongly that the reference to the two Rhodas in the David Tompkins will is an error and that the two Rhodas really are identical. If I recall where I saw that reference to a problem with Little Compton Families, I'll post again. Ruy Cardoso>> Thanks for the good luck and thanks again for the insights. Karen Flanders Eddy