When the time to distribute arrived, it of course became necessary to determine who should take. In the absence of identification in the will, the name Mary McCarty being insufficient in the circumstances disclosed, an ambiguity or inadequate description presented itself requiring extrinsic evidence to determine the fact: Miller's Estate, 26 Pa. Super. 443; Morris's Estate, 76 Pa. Super. 50; Byrne's Estate, 121 Pa. Super. 550, 184 A. 303; Worstall's Estate, 125 Pa. Super. 133, 190 A. 162; Wittmer Estate, 151 Pa. Super. 274, 277, 30 A.2d 197; Brownfield v. Brownfield, 12 Pa. 136, 144; Newell's Estate, 24 Pa. 197, 199; Root's Estate, 187 Pa. 118, 40 A. 818; Metzger's Estate, 222 Pa. 276, 281, 71 A. 96; Mizener's Estate, 262 Pa. 62, 105 A. 46; Lockwood's Estate, 344 Pa. 293, 25 A.2d 168; Harris Estate, 351 Pa. 368, 380, 41 A.2d 715. We have recited the circumstances in which the testatrix made her will and we all agree that it clearly appears that Margaret McCarty is identified as the beneficiary intended by the testatrix though designated as Mary McCarty.