Lindy: Yes, I do know the meaning of the term 'circa' as used in genealogy. I use the term often in my postings and for my own ancestry. Since, I have yet to see any 'documented evidence' of James' (circa 1709), John's (circa 1736) and James' (circa 1740) actual date of birth, said dates are used by me as a basic means of identification. I have no basis to think said dates of birth are 'significantly' different than stated by me. As to said dates of birth being 'passed down' for generations, I think such a claim is a stretch! Early 'Abercrombie' dates going back before 1750 are basically the result of 'recent' research done by MANY...including the two of us. And your statement regarding the taking down of your circa 'dates' to satisfy me is a little over the top...don't you think?
Throughout recent history (hundreds of years), family naming patterns can be ascertained at various degrees within most social/economic classes found in the civilized world. Where I determine family naming patterns DO exist over several generations, I would be foolish NOT to consider a first-born son or daughter being named in variance with said family naming patterns. Regarding the naming of Isaac's son being Archibald, it wasn't based on the mother's family.I checked that out years ago. Tony Schoonover