Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T19:35:00.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Current Status of Weinberg's Differential Rule

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

W.H. James
W.H. James*
Affiliation:
MRC Mammalian Development Unit, University College, London, UK
*
MRC Mammalian Development Unit, Wolfson House, University College London, 4 Stephenson Way, London NW1 2HE, UK

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A reanalysis of the data presented in a recent large twin study suggests that opposite-sexed (OS) pairs may be not as exhaustively tested as same-sexed (SS) pairs on genetic markers. This is contrary to an assumption I made in estimating that there are about 8 SS dizygotic pairs to every 7 OS pairs (thus impugning Weinberg's differential rule). If this assumption is false also in regard to the samples I discussed, then that estimate is unsound and Weinberg's rule is unscathed by empirical data. However, regardless of such considerations, there are strong theoretical reasons for questioning the status of Weinberg's rule. It is based on two assumptions, namely that p (the probability that a dizygotic twin zygote is male) is equal and independent for all dizygotic twin zygotes. Data are adduced here to suggest that both assumptions are false. The upshot is that, at present, without testing, we cannot know, of any given population, whether the rule holds or not. Otherwise, though Weinberg's rule may be useful (like Hellin's law) as a rule-of-thumb, it cannot be assumed as a basis for serious scientific argument.

Keywords

Weinberg's ruleTwinningSex combination
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 1992 , pp. 33 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1992

References

REFERENCES

1.Astolfi, P (1989): Probability of male births in cattle pregnancies. J Anim Breed Genet 106:272–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Bar-Anan, R, Robertson, A (1975): Variation in sex ratio between progeny groups in dairy cattle. Theor App Genet 46:63–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Brooks, RJ, James, WH, Gray, E (1991): Modelling sub-binomial variation in the frequency of sex combinations in litters of pigs. Biometrics 47:403–417.Google Scholar
4.Crouchley, R, Davies, RB, Pickles, AR (1984): Methods for the identification of Lexian, Poisson and Markovian variations in the secondary sex ratio. Biometrics 40: 165–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Edwards, AWF (1958): An analysis of Geissler's data on the human sex ratio. Ann Hum Genet 23:6–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Gray, RH (1991): Natural family planning and sex selection: fact or fiction? Am J Obstet Gynecol 165: 1982–1984.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Guerrero, R (1974): Association of the type and time of insemination within the menstrual cycle with the human sex ratio at birth. New Engl J Med 291:1056–1059.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Harlap, S (1979): Gender of infants conceived on different days of the menstrual cycle. New Engl J Med 300:1445–1448.Google Scholar
9.Hedricks, C, Mc Clintock, MK (1990): Timing of insemination is correlated with the secondary sex ratio of Norway rats. Physiol Behav 48:625–632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Husby, H, Holm, NV, Gernow, A, Thomsen, SG, Kock, K, Gürtler, H (1991): Zygosity, placental membranes and Weinberg's Rule in a Danish consecutive twin series. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 40:147–152.Google Scholar
11.James, WH (1975): Sex ratio and the sex composition of the existing sibs. Ann Hum Genet 38:371–378.Google Scholar
12.James, WH (1975): The distributions of the combinations of the sexes in mammalian litters. Genet Res 26:45–53.Google Scholar
13.James, WH (1976): The possibility of a flaw underlying Weinberg's Differential rule. Ann Hum Genet 40:197–199.Google Scholar
14.James, WH (1976): The combinations of the sexes in twin lambings. Genet Res 28: 277–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.James, WH (1979): Is Weinberg's Differential Rule valid? Acta Genet Med Gemellol 28:69–71.Google Scholar
16.James, WH (1984): Twins. New Engl J Med 311:58.Google ScholarPubMed
17.James, WH (1984): Coitus-induced ovulation and its implications for estimates of some reproductive parameters. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 33:547–555.Google Scholar
18.James, WH (1986): Hormonal control of sex ratio. J Theor Biol 118:427–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.James, WH (1987): The human sex ratio. Part 1: A review of the literature. Hum Biol 59:721–752.Google Scholar
20.James, WH (1987): The human sex ratio. Part 2: A hypothesis and a program of research. Hum Biol 59:873–900.Google Scholar
21.James, WH (1989): Parental hormone levels and mammalian sex ratios at birth. J Theor Biol 139:59–67.Google Scholar
22.James, WH (1990): The hypothesized hormonal control of human sex ratio at birth - An update. J Theor Biol 143:555–564.Google Scholar
23.James, WH (1990): Reproductive stopping rules and Lexian variation between couples in the probability of producing a male infant: A comment on Yamaguchi (1989). Demography 27:653–655.Google Scholar
24.James, WH (1992): The hypothesized hormonal control of mammalian sex ratio at birth — A second update. J Theor Biol (in press).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Jamriška, M (1988): An analysis of sex ratio in the progeny of rabbits. Acta Zootechnica, Nitra 44:65–76.Google Scholar
26.Machin, GA (1991): Private communication.Google Scholar
27.Machin, GA (1990): Definitive methods of zygosity determination in twins: Relevance to problems in the biology of twinning. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 39:459–471.Google Scholar
28.McWhirter, KG (1956): Control of sex ratio in mammals. Nature 178:870–871.Google Scholar
29.Nielsen, LS, Eiberg, H, Fenger, K, Mohr, J (1990): An MHC (HLA-A, -B, C2, BF, HLA-DR, GLO1) haplotype study of 497 Danish normal families with 1970 children including 97 twin pairs. Tissue Antigens 36:141–148.Google Scholar
30.Orlebeke, JF (1990): Private communication.Google Scholar
31.Orlebeke, JF, Eriksson, AW, Vlietinck, R (1989): Weiberg's Rule reconsidered. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 38:237–238.Google Scholar
32.Paul, A, Kuester, J (1987): Sex ratio adjustment in a seasonally breeding primate species — Evidence from the Barbary macaque population at Affenberg Salem. Ethology 74:117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.Pickles, AR, Crouchley, R, Davies, RB (1982): New methods for the analysis of sex ratio data independent of the effect of family limitation. Ann Hum Genet 46:75–81.Google Scholar
34.Powell, RL, Norman, HD, Dickinson, FN (1975): Sire differences in sex ratio of progeny. J Dairy Sci 58:1723–1726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.Pratt, NC, Huck, UW, Lisk, RD (1987): Offspring sex ratio in hamsters is correlated with vaginal pH at certain times of mating. Behav Neur Biol 48:310–316.Google Scholar
36.Verme, LJ, Ozoga, JJ (1981): Sex ratio of white-tailed deer and the estrus cycle. J Wildl Mgmt 45:710–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.Vlietinck, R, Derom, C, Derom, R, Van den Berghe, H, Thiery, M (1988): The validity of Weinberg's Rule in the East Flanders Prospective Twin Survey (EFPTS). Acta Genet Med Gemellol 37:137–141.Google Scholar