Jon raises some interesting questions. Census records should never be deemed absolutely accurate unless supported by at least two other independent quality sources. While they may be accurate, there are numerous reasons why they might not be. 1. The source was guessing. For example, the day the census-taker comes around, everyone but Aunt Sarah is away from the house doing chores; and Aunt Sarah's memory is a little vague about the ages of her nieces and nephews, or how to spell their names. 2. The census-taker was guessing. He visits a family new to the community, none of whom can read or write. They're of German descent with a name that sounds vaguely like Smith, so this year they are Smiths. Or perhaps they don't trust him, and refuse to answer his questions, so he guesses at the ages of the members of the family that he can see, but misses sister Sarah who was visited her cousin that day. 3. The census-taker's handwriting is terrible. He visits a family named Snipp, but his handwriting looks like Sniff. I could go on, but I think you get the point. I once came across a family at the bottom of a census page with the husband, wife, and one child listed. At the top of the next page was a new family household. I knew that this husband and wife had several children, so where were they? Turns out that the census recorder put the rest of the kids at the end of the census roll, many pages away, with a note as to what household they belonged to. Census records are great sources, as long as you take them with a healthy grain of salt.