Eric, I have had the same thought. I keep seeing this John Looney age 70 (b. 1771) in the 1841 Maughold Census who appears to be the same age as John Looney, son of Daniel. There is no other John Looney born in Maughold Parish in the 1770 plus of minus 5 year time period who would fit. The fact that the census shows him to be a "Fisherman" probably explains the reason why his father Daniel passed the Crow Creen lands down to the younger son, Robert. Not everyone is cut out to be farmers. It is odd though that Daniel did not mention his son John in his will if John were still alive. Of course John Looney (Yack) 1748-1835 didn't mention by name all of his living children either. Both brothers, Daniel (Yack) and John (Yack), had previously taken care of their expected heirships so they really didn't need to mention the children all by name.

Doing a quick search of marriages and births, it appears this family is the John Looney who married Elinor Corteen 5 Apr 1809 in Bradden Parish. The births of their sons, John 1820 and James 1823, are recorded in Ramsey and it shows the parents as John Looney and Elinor Cotteen (Corteen).

John Looney b. `1771 didn't live to show up in the 1851 census so there should be a will for him that might explain his connection to the Looney family a little better.