This is a temporary document, which may be amended or even deleted as more information becomes available. There is enough conflicting information in records and in other trees on Ancestry that I want to document here what I have found and my conclusions for how I am representing this family in my Gray-Gibson-Johnston-Butson tree.

Early Records

The earliest documented records are:

1 - 16 Jan 1834 marriage of Daniel Wood to Jane Butler, both residing at Whitby Township, Ontario County, Ontario, Canada

2 - 1851 (actually taken in 1852) Census of Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia showing the family in Hibbert Township, Perth County, Ontario, Canada

I put a lot of credibility into the ages and birth order of children in their childhood family censuses, particularly prior to 1900. Either through vanity or illiteracy or simply not knowing, adult people's ages tended to be understated (making them younger than they are) in later records. But their childhood ages, particularly when listed with the other children in the family, tended to be much more accurate - both because the information was given closer to the time of their birth, because their parents had a better notion of their ages, and because the birth order of the children is explicitly shown.

This is extremely well demonstrated in the 1852 and 1861 censuses of this family. Each member of the family should have aged 9 years (maybe 8 or 10, due to birth date). Instead, Daniel aged only 5 years (50 to 55), Jane only 5 years (40 to 45), Levi only 3 years (16 to 19), Fanny only 3 years (14 to 17), John only 2 years (12 to 14), Sarah/Sally only 2 years (10 to 12), and Daniel only 3 years (8 to 11). 

Conflicts in the Records

There are multiple conflicts in the records, but I will address only some of those that I have specifically examined.

1 -  Children of Jane born too early for 16 Jan 1834 marriage --> Daniel had been married before

Ester is clearly shown as age 20 in the 1852 census, which places her birth about 1832, two years befor Daniel and Jane married. Mary Delilah does not appear with the family in 1852, since she had already married Martin Feeney. However, her death record explicitly gives her birth as 28 Oct 1833 (not 1834 as some trees have her). And her mother's name is given not as Jane but as Mary Delilah.

Thus it seems clear that Daniel, who would have been about 29 at the time of his marriage to Jane, must have been married and probably widowed and brought at least two daughters to the marriage. And this is how I am carrying the family and these two daughters.

Ester is shown in the 1851 census as born in Canada. And, although some tree-makers insist that Mary Delilah was born in New York, all censuses and her death record point to her birth as being in Ontario, specifically in Whitby Township. So it seems likely that Daniel's first wife died in Whitby Township. It is not clear whether their marriage was in New York state or in Whitby Township.

2 - Birth of Mary Ann Elizabeth - 1834 vs. 1838 - NY vs. PA --> Death record birth information is erroneous

A number of trees give Mary Ann Elizabeth Wood's birthdate as 23 Sep 1838, almost certainly because that is what her death record states. And indeed all of the censuses from 1861 onward all give her age as being born about 1838-1840. However, the 1852 census shows her as age 18 (thus born about 1834) and specifically places her in birth order between Ester (age 20) and Levi (age 16), so that there is little doubt that this nearest-to-the-event record is probably the most-correct one.

All records that give a specific place of birth for her (including the 1852 census) point to New York, with the exception of her death record, which shows Pennsylvania. So once again, her death record is in conflict with the earliest information. Where did the information on the death record come from? The informant was her grandson, and I clearly find his statements, which he certainaly believed to be true, were simply not accurate. It seems likely that her birth month and day were accurate, as they would have been celebrated each year. But her birth year and her birth state are most accurately shown in the 1852 census, and I am carrying her as born in New York about 22 Sep 1834 (it may have been 1835). This is still consistent with her parents' marriage 16 Jan 1834.

3 - Birth Years of the other children

I am using their ages in the 1852 census. Clearly someone had lost track of their ages and birth years between 1852 and 1861 (see above), and they all came to believe their modified ages and birthdates. But the 1852 census was there and showed the information, so that there is no reason to continue to use the after-the-fact birth years that the later records give. For example, it is clearly impossible that the son Daniel could have been 8 in 1852 and only 11 in 1861. I do have to acknowledge another possibility, which is that the 1852 census taker simply took Ester's age and put the other children every two years after her. It seems highly unlikely that Daniel could be mistaken for 8 if he was only an infant. But perhaps the census taker did not see the children and simply made the ages up. This would clearly violate any oath he may have taken, but it cannot be ruled out. The issue is open, and I tend to believe the 1852 census until shown concurrent or prior evidence that supports another conclusion. Thus I do not believe the records from 1861 onward are correct as to the ages and birth years.

There is more that needs to be researched, but this is all that I have been able to determine thus far.