Thursday, April 23, 2020

Steidinger and Weaver

The ins and outs of family research can be illustrated by two families on TOF's tree; viz., the Steidingers of Easton and the Weavers of Bucks. TOF's great-grandfather, Anthony Singley married a Margaret Weaver in Bucks County; and another ggf, Frank Metzger, married a Lavinia Steidinger, also in Bucks. In addition, Henry Schwar, not a direct ancestor, married Mary Steidinger. Until last week, TOF knew nothing more about them than their names. A short discourse about the research may be instructive.

The church record books for St. John the Baptist of Haycock Run, Bucks Co., were microfilmed back in the day and TOF ran through them at the Easton Public Library Marx Room a number of years ago. Likewise, the Katolische Kirchebuchen of the Gemeinden Ober- und Niederhausen, Kreis Emmendingen, Grandherzogthum Badens had been microfilmed by and available through the Mormon Stake, which TOF consulted while still in Colorado. Both can now be accessed on-line via Ancestry.com.

To begin...

In the Liber Baptismoraum of St. John the Baptist of Haycock Run, we read:
1868 August 11th. Bapt. Sarah J. (n) ex Francisco Metzger et Lvina Stidigner
which gives us the mother’s maiden name. Franz has become Franceso because while he was born in Baden, the book is is Latin. Steidinger was spelled Stidigner; but as Faithful Reader may suspect, Steidinger is a name that can be spelled in a wonderful variety of ways. Lavinia in various documents ia spelled Lovinia, Lovina, and so forth. The way to discover that "Lvina Stidigner" and "Lavinia Steidinge" are the same person is to cross reference. For example, earlier in the same book, TOF found:
Die 16th Novembris 1862 baptizai Israelim Leonam fil. leg. Francisci Metzger et Lowinae Steidinger natus an die 21 Juli 1862.
 The -ae ending is the Latin genetive. The -im and -am endings are accusative. So Israel Leo Metzger, legitimate son of Francis Metzger and Lowinia Steidinger. W was pronounced as V.

So when were she and Frank married? The records for St. John the Baptist are silent. But on line, Lavinia’s obituary (21 Feb 1921) tells us they were wed 11 May 1854 in Bucks Co., moved to S. Bethlehem 5 Feb 1887, and “later” relocated to Fountain Hill.\

Note that "the following children survive: Mrs. Martin Rauschwender of New York, Mrs. James Knight, Mrs. Anthony Singley, Mrs. Charles Oxford, Mrs Charles Clark of Fountain Hill; Jacob and Charles of South Bethlehem. Israel and Lawrence of Fountain Hill. A brother Israel Stadinger of Wilkes-Barre and a half-brother Samuel Werst of Perkasie also survive.
The Singley connection assures us that this Lovina is the same as our Lavinia, as does the existence of a brother named Israel, after whom she named a son.

When located on-line, Lavinia's death certificate, like her obit, fails to name her parents but tells us she was born 19 Aug 1833. Again, no joy in the St. John the Baptist records. Perhaps she was not Catholic.

A search of the 1850 Census, Forks, Northampton, Pennsylvania, four years before she wed Metzger, we discover:
·         Name                               Age        inferred birth year
·         Reuben Dietrich                36           1814
·         Susanna Dietrich               42           1808
·         Levina Steidinger            17           1833
·         Ephraim Steidinger           15           1835
·         Tilghman Steidinger          14           1836
·         Samuel Steidinger               8            1842
·         Mary A Dietrich                  3           1847
·Charles Dietrich                25           1825
There was another Lavinia Steidinger not too far away, Steidinger not being an uncommon name in them thar parts. The names of presumptive brothers, Ephraim and Tilghman, sound Protestant. Catholics tended then to take the names of saints; Protestants like OT names. Tendencies prove nothing, but are only another evidence.

But what’s a gaggle of Steidingers doing in Rueben Dietrich’s house? The simple answer is that Susanna was Lavinia's mother, but married Dietrich sometime between 1842 and 1847. But we don't have Susanna's maiden name nor the paternal Steidinger. The brother, Israe, cannot be found and TOF is reminded how people with multiple names often used them interchangeably. (TOF once discovered in German parish records that Franz Zængle, Josef Zængle, and Anton Zængle were all one person: Franz Josef Anton Zængle!) 

But another baptismal record at John the Baptist explains something. 
 1886 Januarii die vigesimo tertio baptismatem Mariam ad fidem conversam, fil. Tilman Steidinger et Lydiae Klotz, nat. Aprilis die 2ndo 1864.
Mary Steidinger [who later married Henry Schwar] was a convert, the daughter of Lavinia's younger brorther, Tilghman Steidinger. That probably means Frank Metzger might not have wed a Catholic and hence was not recorded in the St. John the Baptist record book. 

Eventually, searching led to the records of St. John’s Lutheran Church in Easton, which revealed that in
Oct 1846 Hieronymous Dietrich married Susana Steidinger, widow.
So was Hieronymous the same as Rueben? Well, if your name were Hieronymous, what would you tell a Census taker? Perhaps Reuben was his middle name?  But Hieronymous is the Latin form of Jerome, and in 1860, Tinicum, Bucks, we find
·         Name                                    Age
·         Jerome Deiterich              50
·         Susanna Deiterich            50
·         Samuel Deiterich              19
·         Maryan Deiterich             13
·         Charles Deiterich              12
·         Martin Deiterich               7
·         Paul Steidinger                  3
·         Susanna Steidinger          1
Tilghman is married and in a separate household. Samuel "Deiterich" is probably Samuel Steidinger from the 1850 Census and Maryan is Mary A. But Charles should have been 2 in 1850 but does not appear there. Neither the 1850 nor 1860 noted the relationships to head of household and TOF has encountered other instances in which housemembers with different names were carelessly transcribed with the head's name. The two youngest Steidingers may have been the children of Samuel, grandchildren of Lavinia.
Tilghman Steidinger’s death certificate, filled out by his daughter Mary Schwar, listed ‘don’t know’ as the father and Susahan [sic] Hauser as the mother, so we finally have a family name for the mother. Then, a search for Israel, listed as a brother in Lavinia's obit, produced a death certificate for Israel H. Steidinger of Wilkes-Barre where the parents names were clearly Paul Steidinger and Susan Hauser, both of Bucks County. The two children in Jerome Dietrich's home bore the same names, not likely a coincidence.
 
The direct line is then:

Susanna's Steidinger children were born from 1833 to 42, so her husband Paul should have appeared in the 1840 Census as head of household. (Maybe he could have been in 1830, but that is uncertain.) However, there is no Paul Steidinger anywhere, except for the kid in 1860.

In 1800,  Johan Stetinger lived in Easton with his wife Christiana Dietz. He was the only Steidinger in town. He was still there in 1830, but not in 1840. (Nor in 1810 and 1820!)

In 1810, Georg Stedinger appears with his family in Lower Saucon. He reappears in 1820 and 1830, but not in 1840.

And in 1830, young David Stetinger, son of Johan and Christina appears in Easton., b. 4 Oct 1805 and bapt. 24 Sep 1818 First United Church of Christ Easton and wed Fredrica Kassler 30 Mar 1830 at St John's Lutheran Church. He reappears in 1840 Bushkill Ward, Easton with a single male child.

It is likely that Paul is one of the numerous sons of these people who somehow avoided the Census records. One possibility is that the person filling out Israel Steidinger's death certificare had misheard some family story. That was the only record naming "Paul Steidinger"

As for the half-brother, Samuel Werst, there were in the 1870 Census, as usual, two Samuels Werst. One, aged 26, was working as a farm laborer for Tobias Hinkel in Nockamixon Twp, Bucks Co.  The other, in Lower Saucon was in his fifties. The latter was unlikely to have survived into his hundreds in 1921. The latter would have been 68.

A portion of Nockamixon Twp, from an 1876 map shows the locations of A[nthony] Singley (north of center), S[ebastian] Schware (due south to Marienstein Ch., then southwest), J[oseph] Schware (ssw of S. Schware), and F[rank] Metzger (north on road to first left, then due west). There is also a property northeast of A. Singley off the next road [dotted road] for I. Weaver.
The Weavers are the other family that had been a dead end. There is a record at St. John the Baptist attesting to the marriage of Anthony [Anton] Singley [Zangle] to Margaret Weaver on 19 May 1853; but whence Margaret Weaver, who knew?

One of two possible Margaret Weavers in Nockamixon Twp, 1850, only one was the right age to become Margaret Singley in 1860:
Name                  Age implied birth year
Mary Weaver        46       1804
Margret Weaver  15       1835
Elizabeth Weaver  12       1838
Ann Weaver            7        1843

which means Margaret was 18 when she wed. Her mother was apparently named Mary. the family was scattered across 1860, each in a separate household:
Mary Weaver         (55) housekeeper, alone.
Margaret Singley  (25) as the wife of Anton Singley
Elizabeth Weaver   (22) as a servant in the household of Simon Raisner
Anna Weaver         (17) as a domestic in the householf of Martin Breiner 
in addition, I. Weaver appears on the 1876 Nockamixon map and Brice Weaver to the south on the Tinicum Twp. map. These are possible brothers of Margaret.
Working backwards was more difficult, since family members are not named in earlier Censuses and Weavers as plentiful as shad in the Delaware. But in 1840, their ages would have been

Name                  Age in 1840 Census category
Mary Weaver        36       =female 30-39
Margret Weaver      5       =female 5-9

Elizabeth Weaver    2       = female  under 5
Ann Weaver            not yet born     


A likely candidate in 1840 in Tinicum Twp. would be
Abraham Weaver
Home in 1840 (City, County, State):    Tinicum, Bucks, Pennsylvania
Free White Persons - Males - 10 thru 14:    2 (two sons gone by 1850?)
Free White Persons - Males - 30 thru 39:    1 (Abraham?)
Free White Persons - Females - Under 5:     1 (Elizabeth?)
Free White Persons - Females - 5 thru 9:     2  (Margaret? plus another married by 1850?)
Free White Persons - Females - 30 thru 39:  1  (Mary?)
This seems to match up pretty well with Mary's 1850 family, and no other Weaver family in the county seems to match the age profile.Ten years earlier, we find:
Abraham Weaver
Home in 1830 (City, County, State):    Tinicum, Bucks, Pennsylvania
Free White Persons - Males - Under 5:        2 (these were the two males 10-14 in 1840)
Free White Persons - Males - 20 thru 29:     1 (Abraham? b. 1801-1810)
Free White Persons - Females - 20 thru 29   1 (Mary? b. 1801-1810)




But that is as far as it goes. In 1820, Abraham would have been (10-19), probably not a head of household. Without birth, marriage, death records, possibly from the Upper Tinicum Lutheran Church, things cannot be further pinned down. For example, what was Mary Weaver's maiden name? Might it have been Tilghman? Who knows?

The 1782 and 73 Tax Lists lists a Jacob Weaver in Tinicum Twp and no Weavers in Nockamixon. The 1790 census lists Jacob Weaver with 3 males of gun-toting age (16+), eligible for the well-regulated militia, one male less than 16 and 3 females. Townships were not mentioned, but it was probably Tinicum.
         
These two tales illustrate the difficulties of this hobby, where it's all to easy to jump to a conclusion, after which it gets passed around like a head cold among researchers who accept others' family trees on faith

Friday, April 17, 2020

Operational Definitions

There is no such thing as the speed of light.

What there is: is a number produced by a particular series of operations. For example, in 1879, using rotating mirrors, Michelson measured a speed-of-light of 299,910 kps. In 1882, using the same method, he found it to be 299,853 kps. OTOH, Mittelstaedt & Birge measured speed of light in 1928 using a Kerr cell and obtained 299,785 kps; while in 1950, using a geodimeter, Bergstrand obtained 299,793 kps.

Some of that may be due to better measurements; but some is due to the fact that different methods =define= different terms. Speed-o-light-measured-with-rotating-mirrors is not the same thing as speed-o-light-measured-with-geodimeters.

Thus, when the method of measurement is changed, such as a new definition of what-is-to-be-counted, we can expect a change in the reported measurements. This need not be nefarious. The new definition may actually be better at getting at the quantity desired. But it does have to be kept in mind because the new measurements don't mean the same thing as the olf ones. When the Census does this, or the BLS does, they always back-apply the new definition, or run both definitions in parallel to compare how the new and old data compares.
Example: when an official temperature for Ilulissaat in Greenland was redesignated from Jakobshavn to one in nearby Egedesminde, both numbers were noted for several years, until confident that Egedesminde = Jakobshavn minus 2 deg. 

Regarding the current SARS-CoV outbreak, we have to keep in mind that "reported cases" and "actual cases" may be quite different for a variety of reasons, including variations in the way reports are processed. Recently:
“WHO has developed the following definition for reporting COVID deaths: a COVID-19 death is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g., trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery between the illness and death.”
This is not unusual. Consider H1N1. CDC shifted from reporting confirmed cases of 2009 H1N1 to reporting both confirmed and probable cases of 2009 H1N1.

Errors crop up when laymen such as news reporters and other "instant epidemiologists" interpret a sudden increase in a reported value as an actual increase in the number of occurrences. For example, that the speed of light is actually decreasing. A recent spike in COVID-19 deaths in NY caused some alarm, but it was only some earlier cases "catching up" after delays in autopsy reporting and which had not yet been allocated back to the earlier days on which they had actually occurred.
Measurement systems have the following basic qualities.
  1. Sensitivity. The least amount of a quantity that can be detected.
  2. Accuracy. The variation of a measurement from its true value. Requires an agreed-upon standard to evaluate.
  3. Precision (or Repeatability). The variation between replicate measures of the same thing.
  4. Reproducibility. The variation between different technicians performing the same test or using the same instrument.
  5. Linearity. The variation in accuracy across the range of possible measurements.
  6. Stability. The variation in accuracy over time.
When TOF has more time, he may revisit these points.

Further comment on measurement systems.


Friday, March 27, 2020

Tabclearing Day

Tof has been remiss in keeping Faithful Reader up to date on all the things that FaithfDul Reader craves updating.

1. Phone Alone. 

In 1910, the WaPo discovered cell phones. Well, walkie-talkies, actually. These would enable shy lovers, as WaPo imagined, to call their beloved and confess their love without embarrassment..
Wireless Telephones

 2. Don't Forget Your Epi

Epigenetics means that one organism's learnings could be inherited by its offspring.IOW, it's not all Darwinian natural selection.
Epigenetics

3.  Lamarck's Revenge

Speaking of epigenetics... Unified Theory of Evolution

 4. If We Can Send a Man to the Moon...

...why can;t we send a man to the moon? We no longer have the skill sets that sent Apollo out. We'd be starting from scratch if we tried. Back to the Moon!

 5. Arbitrium Liberum

Aquinas always said 'free judgement,' not 'free will.' The fMRI argument is full of crap.
Free Will

 6. What's New?

A mathematical study of innovation. Not everything imaginable is possible; and not everything possible is probable. Innovations work when they are "adjacent" to the AS IS situation. Let's have airplanes without propellers! Let's have radios with pictures! The Adjacent Possible.

7. "Knock, Knock! Who's There?" -- Macbeth, Act II, Scene III

Surprising what Shakespeare said back in the day. Shakespeare Quotes



Wednesday, March 25, 2020

The Wuhan Coronavirus

This morning's (3/25) reports from the five hardest hit provinces in China

Place cases recov'd deaths active
  1. Hubei 67,801 60,811 3161 3827
  2. Guangdong 1,433 1,336 8 89
  3. Henan 1,274 1,250 22 2
  4. Zhejiang 1,241 1,221 1 19
  5. Hunan 1,018 1,014 4 0
The death RATES can be bracketed by assuming all pending cases die or that all pending cases recover, both being less likely than that some do and some don't.
  1. Hubei 4.7% 4.9% 10.3%
  2. Guangdong 0.6% 0.6% 6.8%
  3. Henan 1.7% 1.7% 1.9%
  4. Zhejiang 0.1% 0.1% 1.6%
  5. Hunan 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%
So, unless a whole bunch of new cases appear -- and the meejah are doing their best to raise this possibility -- the Wuhan epicenter (Hubei province) will probably run about 5% mortality. Probably because the govt there at first tried to conceal it and only took action after it was 'too big to fail.' None of the other high-case provinces touch this. Only neighboring Henan comes close, at just under 2%. Guangdong is currently at 0.6% and only if every pending case is mortal might it become as high as 6.8%. In Hunan, where all cases are resolved at this point, the mortality is less than half a percent.


Thursday, March 12, 2020

The Dreaded Red Squamish

As an aid to another discussion elsewhere regarding the latest pandemic, consider the effect of screening for the Dreaded Red Squamish of which, unbeknownst even to Health Care Professionals, infects 5% of the population.

The test, which includes the person administering it, the instruments, conditions, and all what have you, is known to be 95% sensitive -- of those with the Squamish, the test will come back positive 95% of the time -- and 95% specific -- of those without the Squamish, the test will come back negative 95% of the time.

Perceptive Reader will notice that this means a 5% risk of a false positive and a 5% risk of a false negative. The Usual Suspects may cry, "No fair!" because they want Daddy and Mommy to ensure 100% perfect. [When do we want it? Now!] But the sensitivity is about normal for lab tests while the specificity is actually better than normal. (As an example of lack of specificity is the well-known ability of drug testing to detect the consumption of poppy seed bagels.) It is also hard to imagine that the 15,000th test will be performed with the same sprightly verve and enthusiasm as the 1st.

Now, test a million people for the Red Squamish, just in case.
 
 Of the 950,000 folks who are not infected. nearly all (95%) get a clean bill of health and of the 50,000 infected souls, nearly all (95%) get a red card. But along the way 2500 infected people go undetected, while 47,000 uninfected get red carded nonetheless. Perhaps they ate a poppy seed bagel that morning, or the test was run late at night by a dog-tired technician. In any case, you will notice that half of all those getting flagged are not in fact infected.

Consequently, the media reports that the infection rate is 9.5% [(47,500+47,500)/1,000,000] rather than 5%, although what they really mean is that the test-positive rate is 9.5%. 
 
This also affects estimates of the mortality rates. It's not called the Dreaded Red Squamish for nothing. But the denominator has been inflated by the false positives, so deaths will be divided by 95,000 rather than the [unknown] 50,000. There will be 47,000 "recoveries" of people who never actually had the disease. OTOH, some of the undetected 2,500 may also shuffle off the coil of mortality, but these will be assigned to collateral conditions (heart disease, asthma, etc.)

Those unfamiliar with the exigencies of measurement systems analysis are too likely to take test results as given.
Type I and Type II errors are universal. They apply to any decision process. In law, Type I is convicting the innocent and Type II is freeing the guilty. In the FDA, they are (I) withholding approval from a safe and effective medical device or (II) approving an unsafe or inneffective medical device. In product inspection you can (I) approve defective product or (II) reject conforming product. You can decide (I) not to kiss a willing girl or (II) to kiss an unwilling one.
What differs among these cases and others are the consequences of the errors. We try to avoid Type I error in trials and sending innocent people to jail; but we would rather avoid Type II error in FDA approvals. In the latter case, if we approve a device that turns out to be unsafe, people may die. People may also die if a safe and effective device is withheld from the market -- but they don't die on the front page. 
 
You can't improve by making the decision rule more stringent. That will only shift the errors between I and II. It's like Whack-a-Mole. Drive down one type of error and you'll drive up the other. You have to change the decision rules themselves.

Of course, none of this means the Dreaded Red Squamish is not dreadful. It only means the numbers may lead to unreasonable panic or to complacency. 
 
Or both.


Monday, March 9, 2020

One Flu Over

This is an excerpt from "Places Where the Roads Don't Go," which appeared in the collection Captive Dreams.


One Flu Over

It was five years later, during the big epidemic, when everyone went about wearing those face-masks and getting their shots, when we all met again.  Jared had contracted the flu and had fallen deathly ill.  And while he was not as close to me as he was to Kyle, still he had dated my sister and we knew each other better than most.  


The worst of it was over by then and the airports were open once more, so I caught a regional to Newark, rented a car, and drove down to Princeton Hospital.  Traffic was light and people still tended to avoid one another.  Like soldiers in the waning days of a war, those lucky enough to have escaped so far had no desire to become the last fatality.  It was, sadly, the smoothest trip that anyone had ever taken down the Jersey Turnpike.  


The University Medical Center stood on a side street, past an old cemetery, which struck me as bad feng shui for a hospital.  I drove through to the parking lot and walked back to the main building.  It was a chilly, blustery spring quite in keeping with the mood of the country.  The information desk was enclosed within a Plexiglas shell under positive air pressure so germs would not waft into the booth.  I presented my certificate of inoculation and passed through the sanitizing airlock into the main hospital.  The UV lamps, air jets, and gas spray were supposed to sterilize visitors, but I thought they might be only to reassure them.  It certainly cut down on the number of visitors. 

Prometheus Awards: Read & Watch

 Hello Friends & Fans of Michael Flynn,       The Libertarian Futurist Society has made available the text of the acceptance speech Dad...