Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:50:20.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Incidence of Twinning in London from 1581 to 1760

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

K. Nonaka  and
T. Miura
K. Nonaka*
Affiliation:
Department of Hygiene, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
T. Miura
Affiliation:
Department of Hygiene, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
*
Department of Hygiene, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo 173, Japan

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.

Baptism records of parishes in London and its vicinities from 1581 to 1760 (168,238 maternities) were investigated to estimate the twinning rate and its secular and seasonal variations. Total, estimated dizygotic (DZ), and estimated monozygotic (MZ) twinning rates were 1.1%, 0.8% and 0.3%, respectively. MZ twinning rate varied during the 18 decades, with a significantly low rate (0.11%) in the early 17th century (1621-1640). Significant seasonal variations of the twinning rate according to the month of baptism was observed in both DZ and MZ twins. DZ twins were born more frequently in spring and fall in general. Parish records obtained from four parishes near Manchester in England showed an inversed seasonal variation with peaks in winter and summer. An interpretation of this difference was discussed in a context of environmental factors. In the low MZ period, 1621-1640, MZ or like-sexed twins were apparently less frequent in summer (Aprii to October). This result could be explained by a decrease of MZ twins and/or a greater loss of like-sexed DZ twins.

Keywords

Baptism recordsTwinning rateSecular trendSeasonal variationPrenatal loss
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , July 1987 , pp. 365 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1987

References

REFERENCES

1.Allen, G (1981): Errors of Weinberg's difference method. In Gedda, L, Parisi, P, Nance, WE (eds): Twin Research 3: Pait A, Twin Biology and Multiple Pregnancy. New York: Alan R Liss, pp 71–74.Google Scholar
2.Boklage, CE (1985): Interactions between opposite-sex dizygotic fetuses and the assumptions of Weinberg difference method epidemiology. Am J Hum Genet 37:591–605.Google Scholar
3.Carmelli, D, Hasstedt, S, Andersen, S (1981): Demography and genetics of human twinning in Utah Mormon genealogy. In Gedda, L, Parisi, P, Nance, WE (eds): Twin Research 3: Part A, Twin Biology and Multiple Pregnancy. New York: Alan R Liss, pp 81–94.Google Scholar
4.Doherty, JDH, Lancaster, PAL (1986): The secular trend of twinning in Australia, 1853-1982. Acta Genet Med Gemellol, 35:61–76.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Elwood, JM (1973): Changes in the twinning rate in Canada 1926-70. Brit J Prev Soc Med 27: 236–241.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Eriksson, AW, Eskola, MR, Fellman, JO (1976): Retrospective studies on the twinning rate in Scandinavia. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 25:29–35.Google Scholar
7.Harleian Society of London (1877–1979): Registers, 1-89, New series 1. London: Harleian Society Publications.Google Scholar
8.Hémon, D, Berger, C, Lazar, P (1981): Some observations concerning the decline of dizygotic twinning rate in France between 1901 and 1968. In Gedda, L, Parisi, P, Nance, WE (eds): Twin Research 3: Part A, Twin Biology and Multiple Pregnancy. New York: Alan R Liss, pp 49–56.Google Scholar
9.James, WH (1972): Secular changes in dizygotic twinning rates. J Biosoc Sci 4:427–434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.James, WH (1976): The possibility of a flaw underlying Weinberg's differential rule. Ann Hum Genet 40: 197–199.Google Scholar
11.James, WH (1979): Is Weinberg's differential rule valid? Acta Genet Med Gemellol 28:69–71.Google Scholar
12.James, WH (1980): Secular changes in twinning rates in England and Wales. Ann Hum Biol 7: 485–487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.James, WH (1982): Second survey of secular trends in twinning rates. J Biosoc Sci 14:481–497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Krueger, J, Propping, P (1976): Twinning frequencies in Baden-Wurttemberg according to maternal age and parity from 1955 to 1972. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 25:36–40.Google Scholar
15.MacGillivray, I (1981): The probable explanation for the falling twinning rate in Scotland. In Gedda, L, Parisi, P, Nance, WE (eds): Twin Research 3: Part A, Twin Biology and Multiple Pregnancy. New York: Alan R Liss, pp 15–19.Google Scholar
16.Mosteller, M, Townsend, JI, Corey, LA, Nance, WE (1981): Twinning rates in Virginia: secular trends and the effects of maternal age and parity. In Gedda, L, Parisi, P, Nance, WE (eds): Twin Research 3: Part A, Twin Biology and Multiple Pregnancy. New York: Alan R Liss, pp 57–69.Google Scholar
17.Nielsen, J, Homma, A, Isaksen, B, Bertelsen, A (1978): Incidence of twin births in Denmark from 1911 to 1974, Acta Genet Med Gemellol 27:45–49.Google Scholar
18.Nylander, PPS (1975): Factors which influence twinning rates. In MacGillivray, I, Nylander, PPS, Corney, G (eds): Human Multiple Reproduction. London: WB Saunders Company Ltd, pp 98–106.Google Scholar
19.Parisi, P, Caperna, G (1981): The changing incidence of twinning: one century of Italian statistics. In Gedda, L, Parisi, P, Nance, WE (eds): Twin Research 3: Part A, Twin Biology and Multiple Pregnancy. New York: Alan R Liss, pp 35–48.Google Scholar
20.Rachootin, P, Olsen, J (1980): Secular changes in the twinning rate in Denmark 1931 to 1977. Scand J Soc Med 8:89–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Richter, J, Miura, T, Nakamura, I, Nonaka, K (1984): Twinning rates and seasonal changes in Görlitz, Germany, from 1611 to 1860. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 33:121–124.Google Scholar
22.Zahálkovà, M (1974): Multiple births in southern Moravia. Acta Genet Med Gemellol, 22 (suppl): 210–213.Google Scholar