I think 2/12 is the best one to understand -----Original Message----- From: Bonnie McCroby Wuensche [mailto:mccroby@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 1:55 PM To: MDGARRET-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [MDGARRET] Recording ages on the 1850 census In 1850, would 1/6 have been an acceptable way to record that someone was 2 months old? Does it seem that 2/12 is more clear, or are we into using the lowest common denominator? Where could I find out what the standard was? ==== MDGARRET Mailing List ==== If you need help with this list, make sure to email the list administrator, Carol Hepburn, at chepburn@cox.net.

What I am trying to determine is if something that looks like 1/6 could actually be 46? I agree with you - 2 months old should be 2/12. -------Original Message------- From: MDGARRET-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 1:36:00 PM To: MDGARRET-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [MDGARRET] Recording ages on the 1850 census I think 2/12 is the best one to understand -----Original Message----- From: Bonnie McCroby Wuensche [mailto:mccroby@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 1:55 PM To: MDGARRET-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [MDGARRET] Recording ages on the 1850 census In 1850, would 1/6 have been an acceptable way to record that someone was 2 months old? Does it seem that 2/12 is more clear, or are we into using the lowest common denominator? Where could I find out what the standard was?