From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Twin is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Quaternary mention?[edit]

I not only didn't see any mention of non-communal "quaternary marriages" mentioned in this article, I couldn't find a single mention anywhere on wikipedia. Could quaternary marriages be mentioned or even have its own article? I learned about it earlier today in the letter section of Popular Science and this was basically the only worthwhile web reference I could find outside of discussion about group marriages: [1]

More on pictures[edit]

Why is it required to show a mother sitting on street side with irrelevant inclusion of passersby to make any point about twins? Agreed that it is useful ancillary information to the discussion that a political decision on population policy was also informed by an understanding of the phenomenon of twins. But the given picture illustrates little about it. Powstini (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality statistics[edit]

The current paragraph on homosexuality under statistics has many issues, and I think it needs to be deleted as there is no edit that can fix it, other than someone providing correct data from a relevant source. I’m putting this here in talk in case anyone can provide that, otherwise, if there is agreement I’ll remove the line.

The original inclusion by on 24 Oct 2014 ( has the statistic as dizygotic = 22%

Then, changed it a minute later to “Identical …. dizygotic => 22%” which is mixing twin types and just wrong.

10 Nov 2014 FamAD123 attempted to fix the mismatch, but removed the wrong one. From the abstract the 22% relates to fraternal twins, not identical.

Either way, this statistic as presented in this article does not seem to relate to the linked abstract at all. I have not read the full paper (not publicly available as far as I can tell), but the statistic quoted in the wikipedia article doesn’t say 22% higher than who or what, so isn’t really informative, and implies something that the linked paper does not even claim to explore. The paper is actually comparing the likelihood of a known homosexual twin’s brother being homosexual also, and the purpose of the study is to examine hereditary traits of homosexuality, not really making any claims about twins as far as I can see.

I’m not an expert in any of this, I just read a dubious, unclear stat, and then read the linked abstract to figure out what it was supposed to mean.

I would suggest deleting this Homosexuality paragraph under statistics because it has so many issues. If someone wants to add in stats about likelihood of homosexuality in twins, they’ll need to find a paper that actually deals with the subject. Salpynx (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Citation 19 is a dead link[edit]

Changes made along with addition of Turner Syndrome[edit]

I rearranged some of the sentences and added a few words for more cadence and ease of reading. I also deleted the word "vanishing" from the reference to the occurrence of male/female monozygotic twins because it implies that the phenomena is decreasing and there is no evidence presented to support that.

I am new to this so if anyone has any pointers on my reference I'd love to hear them. A lot of the information available on Turner twins is hearsay and I tried to pick an article written by a medical professional for general audiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QKB (talkcontribs) 11:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)