Mexico, México, Catholic Church Records, 1567-1970: 1822 record extracted from 1814-1821 film??
Agustin De La Rosa (MJZV-P52) has exactly one source, an IGI entry, linked to DGS # 004010879 "Mexico, México, Catholic Church Records, 1567-1970 → Cuautitlán de Romero Rubio → San Buenaventura → Bautismos 1813-1822".
The date of christening listed in that source is 29 Aug 1822. However, the last image on the digital film, image 397 of 399, ends with a christening dated 10 Jun 1821.
The original "roll" for the second volume on that film extends onto the first 97 images of DGS # 004596056 "... → Bautismos 1821-1829", and so the last record on that volume is actually dated 27 Jul 1822, on image 96 of 585. (And the first record in DGS # 004010879 is dated 19 Feb 1815, on image 3 of 399). Then there's a gap on that next DGS to the beginning of the next volume, first record dated 25 Nov 1822 on image 102 of 585.
Could it be that a mistake was made extracting the Agustin de la Rosa IGI entry? Perhaps the year was mistranscribed; but if so, how reliable is the other data in that record?
Or could the remaining part of the original "roll" have ended up in another DGS? (I suspect there might be an entire volume missing, number 48, which contained only records for children whose race was not pure Native American from 1813 to July 1822, and then all races from August to October of 1822...) If so, how would I go about finding it?
Answers
-
(Oy, would it have killed them to write the dates in numerals? I can only really count to fifteen in Spanish....🙃)
Yeah, that month appears to be missing, or at least it's not where it should be, chronologically -- which is on the next film, not the one the index is linked to. So there's been at least one error.
I went looking for other baptisms from the missing time period and found one with the exact same date -- twice:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NPZ5-ZMX
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:CQWP-BCN2
The two index entries are identical except for the URL. I wonder if this is because they tried to fix the error at some point, but it failed?
Oh, there are several August 1822 baptisms in this same indexing batch that have two different URLs. Unfortunately, none of them give an image number or anything else to go by. (Here's one of them: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:CQWP-MD3Z and https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NBGP-WZN.)
Given the multiple entries from this same month, I don't think they've all typoed the date; I think it's more likely that the missing records are out of order on some film or other. Unfortunately, I keep hitting the image throttle, so I've given up hunting.
0 -
Just to circle back...
I sent email to books@familysearch.org in July 2022 about this same film, and eventually got a response,
Unfortunately, while we do have the film in our collection, book 48 was never captured on it. Sadly, if we re-digitized the film, it would still not be with the images.
A request for clarification resulted in the further response from FHL-SLC-FilmRequests@churchofjesuschrist.org ,
I am saying that when FamilySearch went to that archive to photograph each page of each book onto microfilm, they completely skipped volume 48. It was never photographed or recorded onto microfilm in the first place. We do not house or keep the physical books or records, we only go to the archives/institutions and capture them – now we do so in digital format instead of onto microform. The images for volume 48 were not destroyed or lost – they never existed. The photographer captured volume 47 then skipped ahead to volume 49.
The original institution will be the only ones with a copy of those records as they have the original volume 48. That would be the local Catholic diocese, or one nearby that is housing all the records for the area. You will need to contact that diocese to see if they have the records and if they could send you a copy of the one you are looking for.
According to the microfilmer's title-slides (usually on the second image, after the FHL film number on the first image, also missing from the beginning of this DGS, but the one for volume 50 is present on image 241), the records were filmed at the Diocese of Tlalnepantla in 1964. Since then, a Diocese of Cuautitlán was formed by Pope John Paul II in 1979 and a Diocese of Izcalli was formed by Pope Francis in 2014, so I guess that's three places to look.
By the way, if by "chronologically -- which is on the next film" you're referring to the one linked as "Bautismos 1820-1836" in the navigation, FHL film 645488, that doesn't actually start in 1820. "1820" appears to have been a mistake transcribing the physical label at some point: the first record of the first volume on that film is dated in 1829. The actual next film is the one linked as "Bautismos 1821-1829" in the navigation, FHL film 645487.
And the prior film was the one linked as "Bautismos 1808-1815", FHL film 645485. So the film I'm looking for must have been FHL film 645486.
0
