1600s record help

[Anizio]

Been working on some church documents for my family tree, luckily the priests translating and typed most of the documents from 1644 on, but now that I'm into the handwritten stuff I need help.

My family tree, for this branch, has gone pre-last names now, and I need help with what I think are the next records.

The tree right now is:

Maria Lucia di Piersanti, 1694 (wife of Francesco Maria Polverari)
daughter of,
Pier Sante di Gentile, 1652, and Lucia
son of,
Gentile di Bedino and Lucia

Now the only record I can find of a Gentile di Bedino from between 1600 and 1652 is this:

It seems to say "Gentile figlio di Bedino Zanchetto e di Camilla", which is odd because it seems like Zanchetti is a last name and it hasn't been in any of the other records of descendants.
I can't help but feel I am misunderstanding since I've never seen Zanchetto as a name, and Zanchetti does not appear as a family name in any of the records that are typed from 1644 on.

I also found a second child of Bedino and Camilla which leaves out the Zanchetto and just puts " Bedino d'Andrea e di Camilla" for Bedino's father.

My question?
Does that actually say Zanchetto? Is that a last name or does it mean something else.
I need help interpreting that part. I am very new to church records of the era without abundant last names so any help from someone more experienced would be appreciated.

Also can anyone read the sister's name on the second record?
Thanks!

[Anizio]

Here is another one from 1605 perhaps easier to read:

[paola52]

Sister's name Lucretia (a spelling widely used at the time for Lucrezia, a very popular name)
In 17th century records the same person is often recorded in different ways. I'd say there is no doubt the father's name was Andrea. Zanchetta? (different spelling in the records for Piersante and Gentile, and with not knowing how this priest wrote the capital Z you can't be 100%sure of the initial) could be a nickname, a sort of aka.
Just my opinion...
Ciao
Paola

[PippoM]

I agree with Paola. That was the time when nicknames wre used to identify people. They could be inherited by children and successive generations, but, as there was no formal attribution, they could even never become real surnames. Of course, no doubt that these records all refer to the same family.

[Anizio]

I think I understand, sort of like a vulgar last name. Like how I found some ancestors in the late 1700s and early 1800s named:
Rotadori vulgo Toccacielo, Rocconi vulgo Pistagnocchi, and Tomassetti vulgo Biagione.

So the name of this ancestor would be something like Gentile di Badino d'Andrea vulgo Zachetta/Zanchetta?

[PippoM]

A name is a way to identify something. In this case, a person. So, you are right: "vulgo" i.e. "known by the people as". If the question is "how do I record him in my database?", you are right, too. You only have to choose the right fields to record this info.
Also, I want to point out that nickname was Zanchetta or Zanchetto (not Zachetta). In the image where you read "Zachetta" there' an abbreviation mark over the "ac", meaning some letters are not written.