Lark numbers
These are the number of babies born, not the rank or anything1880: both less than 5
1890: both less than 5
1900: both less than 5
1910: both less than 5
1920: M7, F less than 5
1930: M6, F less than 5
1940: both less than 5
1950: M less than 5, F67
1960: M5, F24
1970: M5, F22
1980: M less than 5, F13
1990: M less than 5, F9
2000: M less than 5, F13
2010: M less than 5, F26Soo...seems like a pretty obscure name either way. Something must have happened in the forties to get it associated with female-ness.Upon further examination, it stayed negligibly low throughout the forties and then suddenly leapt to 67 in 1949. I wonder what it was!

This message was edited 12/6/2011, 11:27 PM

Archived Thread - replies disabled
vote up1

Messages

Lark on a boy  ·  Lavinia  ·  12/6/2011, 11:49 AM
He shall have "Alouette" memorized  ·  boingloings  ·  12/7/2011, 6:44 PM
Re: Lark on a boy  ·  Serafina Starstrider  ·  12/7/2011, 8:45 AM
Re: Lark on a boy  ·  Pink Princess  ·  12/7/2011, 2:43 AM
Why?  ·  Chelsea  ·  12/6/2011, 6:30 PM
Re: Why?  ·  abbasdaughter  ·  12/6/2011, 10:11 PM
Lark numbers  ·  beethoven  ·  12/6/2011, 11:20 PM
Also  ·  beethoven  ·  12/7/2011, 5:18 PM
Re: Lark on a boy  ·  abbasdaughter  ·  12/6/2011, 6:10 PM
Re: Lark on a boy  ·  mirfak  ·  12/6/2011, 3:46 PM
Re: Lark on a boy  ·  Phoebe  ·  12/6/2011, 3:44 PM
Re: Lark on a boy  ·  Alcyone  ·  12/6/2011, 1:25 PM
Re: Lark on a boy  ·  Dracotorix  ·  12/6/2011, 1:24 PM
Love!  ·  Bex  ·  12/6/2011, 12:06 PM
Re: Lark on a boy  ·  kudriashkajo  ·  12/6/2011, 11:58 AM
Re: Lark on a boy  ·  Ismene  ·  12/6/2011, 11:55 AM