… A problem of this kind, It must be concluded, calls for critical analysis. There is no authority in such matters except contemporary record evidence. No such evidence was cited in calling Ruth an Atkins; nor has our critical study and examination of available record sources produced such evidence. It would not be proper to assert that Ruth was not an Atkins. For all that is actually known, she may have been an Atkins, a Smith, or a Tomlinson, or anything else. But there is no more reason for asserting that she was an Atkins than for assigning any other maiden name to her. The careful genealogical student should enter her as Ruth _____; with a note to the effect that she has been called (the reference should be cited) Ruth Atkins but without any documentation or supporting evidence. It is clearly a case which warrants a healthy skepticism and a display of the critical spirit.
Jacobus had earlier called her Ruth Atkins in Families of Ancient New Haven, 5:1220 but was obviously, in that case, following Stiles. When he examined the problem on his own, he concluded that the identity of Ruth, wife, consecutively, of Joseph Peck and John Hoskins, was unknown.
