HOME  Site Map/Index  PREVIOUS
Latest update 21 May 2017


During the past year we have been discussing the abstracts of records we use for our research and the errors that have been found in these abstracts. Corrections to sources we’ve all used in the past will be reported here as we find them in copies of the original records. If you have a correction you would like published please contact me.
Sheila Ruiz Harrell,
former Genealogist, Los Californianossarh.lopez@gmail.com

Hola Primos!
From a recent conversation regarding the abstracts of Thomas Workman Temple II the following information was found. With the availability of the FREE online ECPP - Early California Population Project database we can now find what IS and what ISN'T in the original California Mission entries.  http://www.huntington.org/Information/ECPPlogin.htm
If you have questions or corrections you'd like published here, please contact me.
Sheila Ruiz Harrell, Assistant to the Los Californianos Genealogist

23 May 2016


From the Thomas Workman Temple II abstracts we find this marriage entry:
Mission Santa Barbara Mats. I and II, #51

350) Item [29 Nov 1850]- FELIPE DE JESUS GONZALES, of Rafael y Ma. Antonia
Guevara, with MARIA DE LA LUZ CANUTA OLIVERA, of Lucas y Ma.
Manuela Cota-Lugo. Esteban Olivera y Ma. Salome Gonzales,
witnesses before Fr. Je. de Js. Ma. Gonzalez.


In his entry Mr. Temple includes names of the parents of both the groom and the bride, unfortunately we have no idea if these are the correct parents or not because those names are not included in the original entry. An image of that original entry is here: 


In this original marriage record 350 the Groom is identified in the margin as Felipe de J[esus] Gon[zales and the Bride is Ma[ria] Canuta Olivera  solteros. In the text of the record the Groom is D[on] Felipe de Jesus Gon[zales], soltero and the Bride is D[ona] M[aria] de la Lus Canuta Olivera tambien soltera. The Padrinos are Estevan Olivera y Ma[ria] Salome Gon[zales].

Please be cautious quoting and/or accepting the work of Mr Thomas Workman Temple II until you've compared his abstract to an image of an original record. Or just going to the online FREE site of ECPP (Early California Population Project) will give you the accurate info in each original entry.

27 November 2015

Mission San Gabriel, Los Angeles, California:.

#645 24 January 1799 - PATRICIO PICO, 28, de Santiago de la Cruz y Maria Juana Bastidas, difunta, naturales de San Xavier de Cabasan, Sonora; 
con BEATRIZ COTA, 43, natural de la Antigua California, viuda de Joaquin Higuera, de Roque de Cota y Juana Ma. Verdugo; viuda vecina del Pueblo. 
Testigos: Manuel Perez Nieto, soldado retirado del Presidio de San Diego, y Maria Gorgonia Valenzuela, 29, muger de Ygnacio Ma. Ruiz, 29, soldado de dicho Presidio de San Diego y esta escolta. Prior testigos: Mateo Rubio, 44, casado con Ursula Dominguez, 36, y Ramon Buelna, 39, casado con Petra Mejias, 38, vecinos del Pueblo. Cruzado.

Below is the image of the original marriage record. I have highlighted the names in question.

In the very first line of Temple's abstract he lists the age of Patricio Pico, which is not in the image of the original, in fact none of the ages are included in the image of the original entry.

Temple identifies Patricio's parents as Santiago de la Cruz y Maria Juana Bastidas, difunta, naturales de San Xavier de Cabasan, Sonora. The father's name is simply Santiago Pico, without the de la Cruz and the mother's name is Maria Jacinta Bastida. She does not have Juana as part of her name and she is not identified as already deceased/difunta. The "originales de la Vilia de Sn Xabier en Sinaloa" refers to the origin of Patricio Pico, not necessarily his parents.

For the bride's info - Beatriz Cota - Mr Temple adds names of parents to her former husband and where they lived. None of this info is in the original entry.

For the Testigos/witnesses Mr Temple lists them all together instead of the first people in the beginning of the record, and he has them correctly identified. However, for those listed after the name of the bride's former husband, Mr Temple seems to be a bit confused. 
Manuel Perez Nieto is identified in the original entry as Jose Manuel Perez and "casado con Theresa Murillo" ... Temple completely leaves out the info about the wife of Manuel Perez but adds in the name Nieto. This family of Perez Nieto folks used the names almost interchangeably, sometimes just Perez, sometimes Perez Nieto, and even sometimes Nieto. In this case it appears to be only Perez, however there is another name between Manuel and Perez ... perhaps it is Nieto, but it doesn't appear to have those letters in the name. After the name Theresa Murillo is this: "y Maria Gorgonia casada con Ygn.o Ruiz soldado de dicho Presidio" but not a surname for Maria Gorgonia as "Valenzuela" nor Ygnacio's name including "Maria" nor anything about him being "y esta escolta". The Padre only says "...and so I firmly signed it" and he does.

I know, most of these additions are helpful, somewhat helpful, but the point here is that Mr Temple adds information as if it were part of the original entry. We as the readers have no clue as to what is factually in the original entry and what has been added by Temple. He provides information that just isn't in the original. Changing history is not what should be happening, not unless he lets us know he's doing just that. The standard method of letting readers know the author or editor is adding what isn't in an original work is to place the additions within brackets [   ]  and then we know. 

The online ECPP version of this same record lists the Groom's name as Patricio Pico, he's single from Villa San Xabier en Sinaloa (not Sonora as Temple reports). He is the son of Santiago Pico and Maria Jacinta Bastida (does not identify her as deceased). Bride is Beatriz Cota, widow from antigua California, previous husband is Joseph Joaquin Higuera (no other details about this guy or his parents). Here is the link to that entry: 

Image of the original marriage record, Mission San Gabriel with highlighting added:

Please be cautious quoting and/or accepting the work of Mr Thomas Workman Temple II until you've compared his abstract to an image of an original record. Or just going to the online FREE site of ECPP (Early California Population Project) will give you the accurate info in each original entry.

19 November 2004  

For Corrections page, by Bettie Dall. [My notes are in red. Sheila Ruiz Harrell, November 14, 2004.]

I understand you are trying to correct mistakes in Temple's records.  I may have given this to you


1- (Incorrect) San Carlos death entry # 2131 : Temple's records read that Josefa was the daughter of Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo.

2- ( Correct)  Original San Carlos death records :28 Dec. 1836  Dona Josefa Vallejo (Ballejo) dead one day received ----sacraments.

[This is absolutely correct! There is no mention whatsoever of any parents in this record. In the margin is her name “Josefa Vallejo” with the R for razon. The text of the record is very clear. This is again one of those entries when you wonder how in the world he got it so wrong! It reads “En 28 de Diciembre de 1836 en la Capilla de Monterrey de sepulture Ea al cadaber de Da Josefa Ballejo, murio el 27, habiendo recivido la absolucion y extrema uncion, de celebracion sus funerales habiendo precedido cinco posas y paqe conste la firme Fr. Je Ma del (?) Real  /rbrc/”

3  I have found no Josefa for Mariano Guadalupe and Francisca Vallejo. [Neither have I.]

There was a child born , Baptism entry # 5529 for Jose Antonio Dementro Madariga born 22 Dec. 1836 Baptized 30 Dec 1836. son of Josefa Vallejo and Juan Madariaga , mother (deceased)
[This is correct…and after much, and I do mean MUCHO searching I found the record! Seems the entries are not all in order…the dates don’t follow and the entry numbers don’t follow as they should, but thanks to Bettie Dall, it was found at last. 
#5529. Antonio Demetrio Madariaga. En 30 de Diciembre de 1836 en la Capilla del Patrocinio Bautice solemnemte puse los Santo Oleos y Sagado Chrisma á un niño que nacio el 22 del mismo hijo legitimo de Dn Bonifacio Madariaga y de Dn Josefa Vallejo fueron sus Padrinos Manuel Cres[?] y de [?] Dn N. N. á quienes adverti lo devido. Antonio D[?]. There is no priest’s signature on the records in this section. They follow a “Nota” that explains how they are so far out of sequence.

Note: Josefa Vallejo,  San Carlos  Bap # 1933
1st. Marriage  :20 May 1808-, Marriage to J Francisco Alvarado, San Carlos entr
y # 743

[this is correct for 1st marriage, although I don’t see the initial “J” in this entry. The marginal entry says Francisco Alvarado con Ma Josefa Vallejo and in the text of the marriage record he is listed as just Francisco Alvarado. Her name is spelled out as Maria Josefa Vallejo]

18 June 1812 ;  Married to Raymundo Estrada in the Chapel of the Presidio entry # 792
[this is correct for 2nd marriage.
Dñ Jose Raymundo Estrada con Josefa Vallejo del Presidio…is the marginal entry. The text very clearly identifies her as “...con Maria Josefa Vallejo viuda de Francisco Alvarado, natural de esta Mision de Sn.Carlos, hija legitima del Sargento (unclear of word) Ygnacio Vallejo y de Maria Antonia Lugo...” 


12 May 1831;   Married to Bonifacio Madariaga, San Carlos entry # 1006
[this too is correct for 3rd marriage.
He is identified as Dñ Bonifacio Madariaga, soltero natural de la Ciudad de Mexico and she is identified as “…con Dña Josefa Vallejo viuda del difunto Dñ Raymundo Estrada, natuaral del Presidio de Monterey y Bautizada (difficult here) Mision, partida de 1933, hija jejigima del Sargento (difficult to read this part) de Caballero Dñ Ygnacio Vallejo y de Maria Antonia Lugo...”

I have the documents in my possession.
Bettie Dall

30 May 2004  Espinosa

Being the Genealogist for Los Californianos I was asked to verify names in the lineage of one of our members. In doing so I found the parents listed for one of the grandfathers were questionable. Normally I use the Thomas W. Temple II abstracts of the Mission records for a guide to find the families, and then usually check with both the Dorothy Gittinger Mutnick and Marie E Northrop works. In this case all 3 of these researchers listed a child with two sets of parents!! After viewing the copy of the record on microfilm at my local Family History Center, I found that according to the handwritten baptismal record, entered by the priest at the Mission, this child was easily identified. The record is very clear, the handwriting very legible. There is absolutely no doubt as to the names of the parents.

 OK, now to give you all the details. If you are a descendant of Gabriel ESPINOSA and his wife Mauricia TAPIA, then this information is for you!

According to each of the researchers I mentioned, Gabriel María Espinosa was baptized 28 April 1798, at Mission Nuestra Señora de La Soledad. That particular entry, #414, shows the following: that he is the legitimate son of Miguel Espinosa, a native of Sinalóa, soldier of Monterey, and of María Gabriela Yguera, a native of the Pueblo of San José. There are NO padrinos listed in this entry, however, the following entry, #415, is for an Indian child, and the padrino and madrina are identified as being for both records. They are Vicente Arroyo and his wife María Dolores Mesquita. Yes, it’s spelled that way, not Amésquita. There is no mention at all of Cayetano Espinosa and Rosa Tapia.

What this means to all of you descendants of this Gabriel María Espinosa is that while the Espinosa line stays the same, the female line changes from Tapia to Higuera. Mr. Temple incorrectly listed Cayetano Espinosa and Rosa Tapia as the parents of Gabriel María. Fortunately there are few changes in your ancestral lines. Rosa Tapia and her parents, Felipe Santiago Tapia and María Philomena Hernández will be deleted. We are ADDING the following lines beginning with María Gabriela Higuera, the wife of Miguel Espinosa,. She is listed as María Gabriela in this son’s record, however in her own baptismal record she is listed as Gabriela María:

Gabriela María HIGUERA, b. 28 Feb 1782, baptized Mission Santa Clara, #335. She was the daughter of Manuel HIGUERA, soldier of the Pueblo of San José and of Antonia RONDONDO, according to the copy of the original handwritten record. However, Antonia’s name is normally listed as REDONDO, and in one case as LIMÓN…but that’s another story!

Manuel HIGUERA was the son of Ygnacio HIGUERA and María Ygnacia BUELNA, according to both Mutnick and Northrop. At this time we have no parents listed for Antonia REDONDO, the wife of this Manuel HIGUERA. If you have any information regarding these parents, along with primary documentation, please contact me so the files, and our history, will be accurate. 

29 May 2004  Lopez, Lugo, Butron/Burton

Hola mis primos!

 We’ve been asking all of you to provide corrections for those you know are incorrect, and that’s just what I have to report this time! One of our Los Californianos members, Bob Lopez, #1125 told me I had the wrong Jose Jesus LOPEZ married to Maria Marcella BOJORQUES. Bob had a copy of the original marriage record and sure enough, the Jose Jesus Lopez listed by Thomas W. Temple II [SD Bats #4363], Marie Northrop [Vol. I, pg 207], in the Gallagher books, [pg 2815] and also in the Dorothy Gittinger Mutnick records, [Entry #877] were all the wrong guy! Temple adds information into his abstract of the record, stating that Jose de Jesus Lopez married Marcela Bojorques; Northrop lists Jose de Jesus as the 9th child of Ygnacio Maria (Becino) de Jesus Lopez and Maria Timotea Trinidad Villalobo, and she adds that he married Maria Marcela Bojorquez; in the Gallagher books someone has added the names of parents, and has added the incorrect parents to the page; and in the Mutnick records she suggests that Jose de Jesus Lopez may be a Villalobo by putting brackets around that name. As you can see, once the error was put into print, so many of our sources picked up the same error. Bob Lopez has done considerable research on many if not all Lopez lines so he knew this marriage was not the right one. (Huge thanks to you, Bob!)

Are you a LUGO descendant?? If you are, this might interest you. A copy of an original service record for Manuel Ygnacio Lugo very clearly lists his parents as Ygnacio Lugo and Maria Dolores MIRANDA. This will be very important to you if you’ve used the information from Marie Northrop’s Vol. II, page 152-153. On those pages the parents of Manuel Ygnacio Lugo are listed as Juan Salvador Lugo and Maria Josefa Francisca Espinosa, and Manuel is listed as the brother of Francisco Salvador Lugo. The source of this original record is: Simancas, Secretaría de Guerra, Legajo 7029, Expediente 1, páginas 126-136. At the bottom of the record is the statement that this is a copy of the original certificate, Real Presidio de Santa Barbara, 23 of November 1798, signed by Felipe Goycoechea, with his rubric.

The next correction I’m reporting at this time has to do with the BUTRON lines, and one that is not BUTRON, but is BURTON. On January 11, 1832 at Mission San Juan Bautista, Entry #994, Juan BURTON married Ramona GONZALES. The name is very clearly written as Juan BURTON in both the margin and in the text of the record. There are no parents listed for this Juan Burton, however, in the Thomas Workman Temple II abstracts, San Juan Bautista Mats, Entry #994 the name is listed as “Juan Butron, h.l. de Manl. Butron y Ma.Ygna. Higuera”. This entry is particularly disturbing because the mother of Manuel Butron/Buitron was Margarita Maria (Dominguez), the Indian girl who married the Spanish soldier on May 20, 1773, Entry #12, Mission San Carlos. If you are a descendant of Juan BURTON and Ramona GONZALES this Thomas Workman Temple II abstract has misled you into believing you have a Native American connection through this line.

If you are a descendant of Juan BURTON and Juana Estifania GALINDO from the Santa Clara area, please contact me so we can further trace this particular line.
Sheila Ruiz Harrell, Genealogist, Los Californianos

In response to CORRECTIONS TO ABSTRACTS OF RECORDS 29 May 2004 regarding Lopez, Lugo, Butron/Burton, posted by Sheila Ruiz Harrell in which she posted notification regarding the wrong Jose de Jesus Lopez married to Maria Marcela Bojorquez:
Here is the correct Jose de Jesus Lopez and his lineage:

Jose de Jesus Lopez, son, and third child of Cornelio Maria Lopez and Maria Rafaela Laureana Romero; born about 1820 at Mission San Gabriel.  Married Maria Marcela Bojorquez at Mission San Rafael on 25 October 1844; died about 1854 in Sonoma, CA.

His children were:

i.  Jose Silvestre Lopez b. about 13 Jan 1846, baptized 13 Nov 1846.
ii. Maria Andrea Lopez b. 2 Jun 1848, baptized 18 Jun 1848.
iii.    Maria Rafaela de Jesus Lopez b. 3 Jan 1850, baptized 25 Jan 1850.
iv. Guadelupe Lopez b.  1851
v.  Jose de Petra Lopez , probably died parvulo
vi. Sebastian Lopez, probably died parvulo
vii.    Margurita Lopez b. 22 February 1855; bp. 25 February 1855.  She was the last child of Jose de Jesus Lopez.

Cornelio Maria Lopez was the son of Jose Maria Claudio Lopez and Luisa Maria Cota; b. 15 Sep 1792 at Mission San Gabriel.

Maria Rafaela Laureana Romero was the daughter of  Jose Ramon Antonio Romero and Maria Serifina Antonia Rosas.

Jose Maria Claudio Lopez, b. about 1767 at Real de Santa Ana, Baja California was the son of Jose Ygnacio Maria de Jesus Lopez and Maria Facunda de Mora.

The foregoing corrects the Jose de Jesus Lopez error. 

This line connects to Jose Antonio Basilio Rosas and Roque Jacinto Cota, funadors de Los Angeles and Andres Cota, funador de San Diego.

I have more information. I have limited the information here due to space limitation.

I can be contacted at  californiano@att.net [Franklin G. Mead (member), Rio Linda, Calif.]

 HOME  Site Map/Index  PREVIOUS