[This source appears to not be available online and no abstract is presented. Given the lack of details provided, it is impossible to asses this source's reliability. The birthdate of 14 Sep 1656 is apparently based on the assumption that Mehitable is the daughter of Sgt. Robert Ayers and Elizabeth Palmer of Haverhill. This family is covered in Source:Holman, Mary Lovering. Ancestry of Charles Stinson Pillsbury and John Sargent Pillsbury, Vol. 2, p. 1089, and Holman, a very respected genealogist, shows no such marriage for Mehitable, indicating that no documented evidence of such a connection was found. Further, in her coverage of the father, Holman abstracts a deed witnessed in 1700 by Mehetabell Ayer, which appears likely to be the daughter of Robert, which would indicate that she was not married at the time, ruling her out as Thomas Philbrick's wife. Some sources, notably Source:Dow, Joseph. History of the Town of Hampton, New Hampshire, Vol. 2, p. 654, identifies Thomas Philbrick's wife as Mehitable, d/o Samuel Dalton. Samuel Dalton was a town clerk and on some occasions he appears to have had family members act as witnesses (e.g., here), so finding a deed where Mehitable Dalton the mother and Mehitable Philbrick the alleged child act together as witnesses leans some credence to this identification (here). Source:Noyes, Sybil. Genealogical Dictionary of Maine and New Hampshire, p. 180, says Samuel Dalton's daughter Mehitable m. (no date given) Thomas Stickney of Bradford. If so, she died in 1689 very soon after giving birth to her apparent only child, a daughter Mehitable. However, none of these suppositions seems supported by a marriage record, the father was intestate and the probate does not appear to list his heirs. Nor do the sources appear to specify any deeds that support their various assertions, and in general, we do not know which pieces of circumstantial evidence were considered, or how it was weighted. Presumably the maiden name of Ayers is based on the family register in Kingston, NH, which apparently lists it, though it was probably recorded 20 years after the marriage, and even that is a guess based on copies made 200 years later. It seems to work, more evidence would certainly be desirable.]
