Since I have to do most of my own research "online" I have become used to some of the frustrations of relying on other people's (mis)transcriptions of material such as the Census.The 1891 version seems to be particularly badly served in misunderstanding both English surnames and place names.The problem of mistranscription has arisen again of late with some searching I've been doing for the families of John and Adelaide Lorking (as their name appears in the 1901 Census)."Adelaide" becomes any number of people in the eyes of the transcriber, including "Adelate" and "Aberlardo". The latter mistake is certainly not the fault of the compiler of the 1871 Census: his copper-plate shows her clearly as "Adelaide". At least her maiden name (Studd) is only subject to the vagaries of an occasional missing "d" at the end.With the Lorkins, however, we face the double jeopardy of, firstly, the common-place variations in the way family names were written down - particularly before compulsory education taught everyone to write - and secondly the incompetence of some latter day transcribers.Thus Lorkin becames Lorcking becomes Luckin becomes Locking and probably Larkin as well. And in the hands of the kind soul who has put the 1851 Census "online", we have the additional problem where, within the same Census entry, part of the family was "Lorking" while some of the children became "Lorkinz". The "Search" facility took some time to release that piece of information, as you can imagine.So: if anyone out there can find us James and Alice Lorkin, born about 1810-14, he in Clare and she in Ashen, who were living on Stoke Road, Clare, in 1871, and who had a range of children, including John, Walter, Louisa, Esther and Emma - and can place them for us in 1861 (we've found the rest of the enrties, we think) - there's two eager Searchers who would be very grateful.Ta, ever so.SCLabels: Larkin, Locking, Lorcking, Lorkin, Luckin