FROM HERE, THE INFORMATION, WHILE I DON'T DOUBT IT'S ACCURACY, GETS A LITTLE CL OUDED. SO, FOR THE PURPOSE OF KEEPING THIS FROM LOOKING LIKE GOULASH, I HAVE SW ITCHED THE BIRTH DATES OF RICHARD'S SONS JOHN AND JAMES. THERE IS A SLIGHT DIS CREPANCY HERE. JAMES IS LISTED AS HAVING BEEN BAPTISED IN 1616 WHILE JOHN IS LI STED AS HAVING BEEN BAPTISED IN 1609. YET RECORDS FROM DEDHAM STATE THAT JOHN, BORN 1616, IS OUR ANCESTOR. I SUBMIT THAT NAMES/BIRTHDATES HAVE BEEN ACCIDENT LY SWITCHED. HAD JOHN BEEN BORN IN 1609, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED AS A 'VERY YOUNG PERSON'. CERTAINLY HE WOULD HAVE BEEN OLD ENOUGH TO TRAVEL WITHOU T THE ALLIANCE OF ANOTHER FAMILY. AT LEAST THIS IS 'MY CONCLUSION.'MCL