That's makes sense. Maybe they just called them "baby" until the next one came along. I've never seen it on a first child either. And now, not only do they have a name immediately, but a social security number! I kept thinking maybe a neighbor gave the information, as I know of at least 2 censuses with my Wilsons where none of the family (I hope) gave the information. Or maybe it came from one of the younger children. Vicki ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 6:38 PM Subject: [Tngibson] UN named babies > Hi Vicki: > > I have seen instances where the child is up to one year old, > and still listed as 'baby' or a blank space for given name. > These are nearly all pre-1880. You never know what the > circumstances are, but it occurs enough to make me think > that it was not uncommon to delay naming. Since there was > no official recording of births, there was no pressure to > assign the child a name immediately. One other note, > I have never seen a case where the unnamed child > was the first born, usually it would be at least the 3d child > or later in birth order. > > Dennis West in Knoxville, TN > Gibson co. surnames: PARKER, BLANKINSHIP, SLAYTON > ===== > Vicki wrote: > When the census taker listed a child as "Baby", do you think it was > because the folks weren't home and he got info from next door > neighbors? > > Some of these "babies" are way to old not to have a name! Or was > this a common practice not to name a newborn for a while? > > Ideas? > > Vicki > > > ==== TNGIBSON Mailing List ==== > Gibson Co TN Genealogy Pages http://www.rootsweb.com/~tngibson/ >