Hi Kirstie, I puzzled for a while over how to present the data in the 1684 list, and seem to have tripped you up! But we can rapidly help you up and to such answers as it does give!! Let's look at one of your examples. > McCormack > Andrew 18 (2), 27, 42(2) The numbers are unfortunately only page numbers, as you have only found your way as far as the index at this point. So, what it is telling you is that on page 18 there are two people with the name Andrew McCormack, or variants thereon. And one more on page 27 and another two on page 42. So, from the page where you found that data, you need to scroll down a bit and you will encounter the list of parishes with their page numbers to the right, and looking for 18, you will see that the parish (or "paroch" as they called it) of INCH is on pages 15 - 19. Click on INCH and it will take you to page 15. Scroll on down and you will arrive at page 18 where you will find McCamick, Andrew living at Aies, where he is listed first, and so I think one can assume that he is the tenant farmer. His wife who is identified by sp. (spouse) is Issobel McNielie. There is usually no way to identify the relationship of the others listed for that location. They could have been living-in farm workers, or relatives, or both at once. Further down at Laigh Mark you'll find Andrew McCarmick, the tenant being Jot. McKelvie wid. I'd guess (& it's not much better than that) that Jot. is short for Jonet, and she is the tenant as a widow. One can then indulge in some grand speculation as to the relationships of the others at Laigh Mark --- Agnes and Elizabeth were probably Jonet's daughters, for instance and having only daughters, she had Andrew as a live-in farm hand. But that's sheer guesswork on my part, if just a little more than one wd have without the 1684 lists to read. > Does this mean for example that there were two Agnes' one was 25 and > one was 40 years old??? And for the Andrew do the brackets mean that > there are 2 Andrews aged 18??? So no ages at all I'm afraid, with the exception that you know that anyone in the list is over 12 yrs old. You'll maybe find it interesting to read William Scot's preface which you can get at by clicking on the end of the last line in the intro, section labeled "Preface to the Lists". I found it quite interesting and he explains that and some other points in detail. > So how do I elaborate on this, find out who was in which family, > addresses and such, or can't I?? For addresses, in 1684 "Andrew McCarmick at Laigh Mark, Wigtownshire" would have been complete information.There were no real mail services then, so an address would be of very limited use, but that would have been it. And as for who was and who was not family in each farm, sometimes you can make an inspired guess, and sometimes you just have to throw up your hands. If for instance cousins were being employed and living in, which would be quite common, there is usually no way at all to distinguish them from sons & daughters of the family, from the information in these lists. > Thank you in anticipation of your help. You are very welcome. > NB- I am sorry if I have bothered the wrong person! No, you got the person who did this transcription, so I don't think you could get much closer. No bother either; all very interesting I think. I had fun doing this -- there is a copy of the lists here in the University library and it seemed to me that although there's not a huge amount of genealogical meat on the old bones of 1684, there's enough. Please excuse the slightly odd layout which confused you. It was the best we could do with William Scot's original transcription. By the way, I'm sure that you'll also have found that small spelling variations meant almost nothing in 1684. The spellings of Scots family names really didn't settle down until fairly well into the 1800s. So McCormack, McCarmack and McCamick were written "as heard" and were quite likely from the same family. Kind regards, and good luck too, Crawford.