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]

Genetic differences in monozygotic twins[edit]

I was intrigued upon reading the paragraph that states that an average pair of monozygotic twins has around 360 genetic differences that occurred early in fetal development. I'd be interested to know how precise-an estimate this was. Are there any other studies carried out that back up these findings? I always thought that monozygotic twins are genetically exactly the same, as is stated in most textbooks, but this research clearly contradicts that assumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael 1234 (talkcontribs) 11:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at that as well, and then noticed that the source is a reference to dailymail which is something of a tabloid. However, their site cites LiveScience, which I'd think is more reputable. Perhaps it can be updated and the reference can be updated? Here's a link to that source: (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed my link. (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


Section “Animal twins” says, “The nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) has identical twins (usually four babies) as its regular reproduction and not as exceptional cases.” This is a mistake. What the armadillo has are quadruplets, not twins.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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)