This might be a good time and place to summarize the Scarff[e] family that lived in Lonan from at least the late 1600's. There appear to be two male Scarff's at the time who had descendants, one named William and the other named James. Judging from wills, they were probably related, perhaps brothers.

I'll talk about James (James I) first because his Scarff line eventually dies out. James was buried in 1719 and his wife Margaret SKILLICORN was buried in 1728. Both left wills (Margaret's was intestate) that mentioned "only son James". James also "left his coz Jo: Skarff house of Balla:Skarff". This John seems likely to be the son of William.

James II was buried in 1770 and his wife Ellinor CHRISTIAN was buried in 1778. James' will mentions "only son James Scarffe". Son James was executor for his mother. There is also mentioned a daughter Mary QUILL and granddaughter Margt CLARK (Mary first husband was Daniel CLARK). Ellinor also mentions "dau-in-law Mary SCARFFE".

James III was bapt 22 Feb 1726/27 and buried 23 Apr 1803 "of Reah" in Lonan. His wife was Mary CALLISTER but based on James's 1803 will (which Frances describes as reading like a bachelor's will) she must have died and they had no living children. He mentions "godson James Scarff son of James [ should this be "John"?] Scarff of Ballaskerrow", which is of the other line William that I am about to talk about. Amongst others, he also mentions 3 QUILL's, which may tie into his aunt Mary above.
Thus ends the Scarff name from James I

Now to William. William may be the "son Gubbon Scarffe in custody of uncle Dan [or Don?] Scarffe" mentioned in the 1675 Archd Will of Cath KAIGHON. This will also mentions "eldest son John SCARFFE", husband Wm LAWRENCE, Dau Ellin SCARFFE exec, and something "due from Phill SCARFFE". However it does not mention a James. [Perhaps "eldest son John" should be "James"?].

William married a widow, Margaret KILLEY als CHRISTIAN (widow of James KILLEY died Feb 1689/90, one son Thomas). They had one son John before William died Feb 1692/93. His will has "only child Jon Skarff exec" but he is not of age. Also mentions "brother James SKARFF" which I would think would be James I from above. There are claims in 1693 by Dan: SKARFF and Gilbert SKARF but I don't know who they are, though perhaps Dan is the "uncle" in the previous paragraph.
William's widow Margaret married a 3rd time, to a CALLISTER and had 2 more children Philip and Mary.

John I, son of William born about 1690-92 was of Ballaskerroo Lonan. This is probably the "Balla:Skarff" left by James I. His wife was Margaret QUARK (d of Phinlo QUARK and Jane LEWNEY). John died 1742 and Margaret 1760, both leaving wills. Of their 6 children, 3 of them lived to have children: John (abt 1717-1747), Philip (1728-1805) and Daniel (1731-1808). I think it's safe to conclude that all people who claim descendancy from a SCARFF/SCARFFE of Lonan since at least 1700 will be descended from one of these 3 sons.

John II married Margaret COWLE (d of Thomas COWLE & Jony BREW) in 1743 at Andreas. Of their 3 children (one born posthumously), only one John III (1746-1809) lived. He married Margaret KILLIP 1769 and they had 7 children and many descendants (including me).

Philip married Ann CALLISTER (d of John CALLISTER & Margaret CLARK) in 1755. They had 6 children that I know of and there are many descendants.

Daniel married Jane KILLIP (I don't know her parents) in 1762 and they only had one child William 1763. I believe he is the one who married Ellinor GELLING (d of David GELLING and Bahee CHRISTIAN) in 1798, had 4 children, with many descendents.

Some time ago, there was a discussion on this board as to where the SCARFF family came from originally before they came to Lonan. It took the family, though somewhat speculatively, well back in time. For those interested in this family, this discussion would be worthwhile to review.

As a cautionary note, I didn't attempt to list every name in the wills, but only the ones that seemed pertinent to this note.

I'd be interested in any additions, corrections or holes in the logic in any of the above. I'm sure there must be some because genealogy has a way of tricking us. That's what makes the detective work so much fun (and frustrating too).