Paper - Duplicate twins and double monsters

From Embryology
Embryology - 20 Aug 2019    Facebook link Pinterest link Twitter link  Expand to Translate  
Google Translate - select your language from the list shown below (this will open a new external page)

العربية | català | 中文 | 中國傳統的 | français | Deutsche | עִברִית | हिंदी | bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | မြန်မာ | Pilipino | Polskie | português | ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਦੇ | Română | русский | Español | Swahili | Svensk | ไทย | Türkçe | اردو | ייִדיש | Tiếng Việt    These external translations are automated and may not be accurate. (More? About Translations)

Wilder HH. Duplicate twins and double monsters. (1904) Amer. J Anat., 3: 387-472.

Online Editor  
Mark Hill.jpg
Note this paper was published in 1904 and our understanding and terminology related to early development and abnormalities has improved since this historic human study. The term "monster" is historic and was used to describe any abnormal development. This term is not used today and appears here only in its historic context.

Teratogen (Greek, teraton = monster) any agent that causes a structural abnormality (congenital abnormalities)


Historic Disclaimer - information about historic embryology pages 
Mark Hill.jpg
Pages where the terms "Historic Textbook" and "Historic Embryology" appear on this site, and sections within pages where this disclaimer appears, indicate that the content and scientific understanding are specific to the time of publication. This means that while some scientific descriptions are still accurate, the terminology and interpretation of the developmental mechanisms reflect the understanding at the time of original publication and those of the preceding periods, these terms and interpretations may not reflect our current scientific understanding.     (More? Embryology History | Historic Embryology Papers)
Note - the term "monster" is historic and was used to describe any abnormal development. This term is not used today and appears here only in its historic context.

Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters


Harris Hawthorne Wilder, Ph. D.

From The Zoological Laboratory Of Smith College.

With 2 Plates And 11 figures In The Text.

Having recently called" attention to the great similarity in the configuration 'of the epidermis ridges on the palms and soles of identical twins,‘ and seeing that the subject is one involving important biological problems, it has seemed to me of importance to collect as much evidence as possible on this head, -and place it in convenient form, that it may serve as a basis for future speculation.

Furthermore, as identical or duplicate twins have not been generally defined save by the somewhat untrustworthy criterion of facial resemblance, and as their close relationship to certain of the types included under the head of double monsters has not been clearly emphasized, I have begun the paper with a discussion of the general subject. This portion of the paper, which presents a series of the most important data concerning twins and compound monsters, will serve as a necessary background for the facts presented in Part II, which constitutes the more original part of the investigation. Part III presents the deductions as far as they seem indicated, but is intended more as an aid in directing speculation in the future than as a set of dogmatic assertions which would be at present premature.

Part I. Multiple Births And Their Relationship To Composite Monsters

Duplicate and Fraternal Twins

It is well known that there are, at least in the human species, two types of twins; the first include those cases where the sex may or may not be the same and where the general resemblance is about what may be expected in the case of any two children of the same family; the second, those who are invariably of the same sex and who otherwise so closely resemble one another that it is difficult or impossible, especially during youth, for those not intimately associated with them to distinguish between them, the so-called “identical” or “ homologous twins ”.

  • Cf. Palms and Soles, in Amer. Jour. Anat., Vol. I, p. 423, Nov., 1902.

Although these two types are both very common, the second rather more than the first, there seems to be in the popular mind no clear distinction between them. That there is a general impression that twins ought to look alike appears from the emphasis placed upon cases where they do not, but that this identity of facial expression does not extend to twins of opposite sex is a fact not commonly apprehended, and instances in literature are not rare in which a young woman in disguise is passed off as her twin brother, or the reverse. As a matter of fact all twins of opposite sex, as well as many cases in which the sex is the same, belong to the first, or non-identical type, while for the second type an identity of sex as well as of facial expression and other bodily peculiarities i-s aprereguisite.

Concerning the nature of this peculiarity, the most plausible and, in fact, the only hypothesis is that twins of the identical or homologous type are produced by the division of a single fertilized egg, while the other type results from the fertilization of two separate eggs, either from the same or different ovaries, and are thus two fundamentally distinct individuals, i. e., a case of multiple birth such as normally takes place in most species of mammals. As expressed recently by Weismann, 02 (II, p. 54) ,

“Wir haben nun allen Grund, (lie erste Art von Zwillingen (13. e., fraternal) von zwei verschiedenen Eizellen abzuleiten, die letztere Art aber (i. e., duplicate) von einer e-inzigen, welche erst nach der Befruchtung durch cine Samenzelle sich in zwei Eier getheilt hat.”

2 Corresponding to this hypothesis, which, in the light of our present knowledge, appears to be not far from the truth, we may designate these two types respectively as Fraternal and Duplicate, thus doing away with the misleading and inapplicable terms “identical” and “ homologous ” as applied to the one type, and furnishing a distinguishing term for the other, which seems thus far to have remained Without a name.“

  • 1 It seems impossible, with any degree of certainty, to place the credit for

the first enunciation of the above hypothesis. Although often attributed to Francis Galton, Baudouin, 91 (p. 274), ascribes it to Camille Dareste, the noted teratologist, who in 1874 defended this theory before the Societé d’Anthropologie against the opposition of Paul Broca. fisher, however, in 1866, antedating the statements of either of the above on the subject, advances the same hypothesis to account for the formation of double monsters, stating that they “ are invariably the product of a single ovum, with a single vitellus and vitelline membrane, upon which a. double cicatricula, or two primitive traces, are developed” (66, p. 208). As fisher published in a magazine not readily accessible, at least at that time, to foreign investigation (Trans. Med. Soc. State of N. Y.), and as the similarity of separate and united duplicates might not have appealed to them, the formulations of both Galton and Dareste may well have been arrived at independently of fisher's theory, and the same ideas may have occurred also to others working in the same field, since the hypothesis is of so obvious a nature.

Intra-Uterine Relations

As the discussion of the origin of these two types of twins leads us to the consideration of the conditions which obtain during early embryonic life, we naturally turn to the observations furnished by obstetricians; but this source, although supplying numerous illuminating facts, is less valuable than it should be, owing to the fact that medical men share the popular confusion noted above in regard to twins and that, while they record trustworthy details concerning placentation and other relationships, they fail to correlate with these the necessary data concerning sea; and general resemblance, the last item of which involves the following up of the case through several years of development, a line of work hard to accomplish during active professional life. The most noteworthy set of data covering these points are those tabulated by O. Schultze, 97, who gives in the form of a classification the various intra-uterine relationships which have been observed in twin births, with suggested correlations of the type of twin produced in each case. As this table is so essential to the present inquiry, I will transfer it in a some what abbreviated form, modifying its very accurate terminology to conform to that in more general use.’

Intra-Uterine Relationships in Twin Gestations

Case I . Two separate blastodermic vesicles with two deciduae reflexae and two placentae. This case is probably one in which there are two separate eggs, either from the same or from opposite oviducts, and implanted

“Strictly speaking, the word “fraternal” applies only to twins of the male sex, since in Latin, as well as in English, there is no word which, like the German “Geschwister,” applies to sisters and brothers alike. The present use of the word in question, however, corresponds to that of the English masculine pronoun “he” in similar cases, and thus seems entirely Warrantable. Pearson’s term “ Sibling” is correct in meaning, but is so rarely used that I hesitate to employ it.

‘Schultze confines the term “Keimblase” (blastodermic vesicle) to the blastula. stage of the embryo, employing for the later stages, to which the same term has been generally applied hitherto, the term “ Fruchtblase.” The parts surrounding this and supplied by the uterine mucous membrane are termed collectively “ Fruchtkapsel,” the free portion of which is the decidua. capsularis (decidua reflexa autt.). 390 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

at some little distance from one another. In one case investigated by v. Kolliker, the two deciduae were distinct but partially adherent over the surfaces in mutual contact, and in another the contact surfaces had fused into a single wall into which, from the two opposite sides, the chorionic villi of the two embryos had grown. In addition to this, one of the placenta) was of the type known as a placenta marginata, caused by a fold of the decidua. [This case is evidently a normal multiple birth, a condition hard to accomplish in a uterus of the shape found in human beings, and often attended by such phenomena as adhesions, fusions and foldings, all indicative of crowding and of nothing else.]

Case II . TWo separate blastodermic vesicles enclosed in a single decidua. Placentae fused with one another but with two separate sets of umbilical vessels. Two chorions, fused at the point of contact. This case is more frequent than (I) but apparently results from the same general cause, 1}. 0., two separate eggs, which are, however, implanted nearer together. This would seem more likely to happen if both eggs came from the same side. [The conditions are seen to be similar to those of (I), the greater degree of fusion being well accounted for by the greater approximation of the two eggs to one another.]

Case III.—Two amnions and two umbilical cords but with a single placenta, in -the middle of which the two cords meet and upon which the umbilical vessels closely anastomose. These are enclosed in a single chorion and covered by a single decidua reflexa. This case is said by Hyrtl to be more frequent than (I) and (II) but is not as frequent according to Spath. The twins are always of the same sex. Schultze says that the explanation of this singular condition is “ zweifelhaft,” and gives the following possible explanations: (1) At first two chorions, as in (II), the contact wall between which becomes absorbed later; (2) may h-ave come from a single egg with double yolk, or (3) from an ovarial egg with two nuclei’ (cf. v. Franqué, 98, Stoeckel, 99, H. Rab], 99, and v. Schuhmacher u. Schwarz, 00). It is conceivable that from such an egg as this last two blastodermic vesicles and two chorions could develop within one zona pellucida, at a later stage of which the two chorions could fuse. V. Kolliker considers it more probable, however, that in such a case the egg would develop two embryonic areas upon a single blastodermic vesicle and that a single chorion would then be the natural result. Each embryonic area would develop its own amnion. In this case the two allantoides would necessarily fuse, being included in a single chorion, and there would come to be between the two embryos a single (common) yolk-sac with two yolk—stalks. V. Ktilliker has observed such cases in hen’s eggs (but without the fusion of the allantoides). M. Braun has seen it in lizards and Panum describes separate embryonal areas upon one yolk (hen’s egg). See also Kaestner’s figure of -a double egg of Pristiurus, 98. [This case seems to put us on the right track regarding the origin of duplicate twins, especially since it is stated that the twins are always of the same sex, and although observations of later physical identity are wanting, it seems safe to assume it. It would seem hardly probable, however, that duplicate twins would arise from an ovarial egg with two nuclei, since in such a case the fertilization could be effected only by means of two spermatozoa, thus introducing different paternal characters; but if we reject all of Schultze’-s alternatives and substitute the possibility suggested above, that of the complete separation of the two blastomeres resulting from-the first cleavage of a fertilized egg, the two components would still remain within one zona pellucida and would later become enclosed within a single chorion, which would develop a single placenta to which each allantois would later become attached. Each blastomere would undoubtedly form at first an independent blastodermic. vesicle but the close association of the two would readily tend toward a fusion of the contact surfaces, thus forming a single vesicle upon the surface of which are two embryonal areas. If far enough apart from one another, each would develop its own amnion, but if near together a common amnion would result, thus producing the condition given in Case IV. This whole matterof the actual condition of the development of two closely associated embryos is very obscure, as there are but scattered and insufficient data bearing upon the case. It will receive a more extended consideration later on, under the headings “ Origin of composite monsters” and “ Other recent theories concerning the genesis of composite monsters.”]

Case I V. Similar to (III), but with both embryos enclosed in a single amnion. This is a very rare case, explicable only by postulating a single blastodermic vesicle upon which the two embryonal areas are nearly or entirely in contact with one another, a case which has been described by several authors as occurring in the hen’s egg. In such a case there would be an almost irresistible tendency towards the fusion of the two embryos along the line of mutual contact, thus producing some form of composite monster. (Schultze says: “ Doppelmissbildungen,” but I use the word double in a more restricted sense as explained below.)

[As Case II is seen to be a variation of Case I with the two embryos nearer together, so Case IV is seen to be a similar variation of Case III, with a similar result, 13. e., the more complete fusion of parts, although here, owing to the direct connection of the two embryos the fusion is liable to extend also to these and produce abnormal results. There are thus primarily, not four but two cases, corresponding to the two types of twins, Fraternal and Duplicate. The close connection of IV and III suggests what may have already occurred to the reader, that many cases of compound monsters come under the same category as -separate duplicates. This is quite probable, but such forms, arising from a secondary fusion, would be asymmetrical and more or less unequal, and would come under the class of autosite and parasite rather than that of symmetrical, or genuine double, mon-sters.]

Definitions or Duplicate and Fraternal Twins

These considerations, together with the distinctions made at the beginning of the article, will en-able us to formulate distinctive definitions of the two forms of twins, as follows:

I. Fraternal Twins.

Either of the same or opposite sex and bearing no closer physical resemblance than is usual in children of the same family. These probably originate -as two separate eggs, and any intimacy of association during intra-uterine life (which is never as close as in duplicates) may be attributed to the crowding within narrow limits to which they are necessarily subjected and for which no adequate provision is made such as occurs in mammals in which multiple births are the rule and not the exception.

II. Duplicate Twins.

Invariably of the same sex and exact or approximately exact physical equivalents of one another, especially in youth, before the modifying influences of environment and ha-bit have had much opportunity to affect them. During intra-uterine life these are more intimately associated than are other twins, and in rare cases this association is of so close a character as to result in the production of compound monsters. All such cases, whether separate or united, may be referred to one and the same cause, that of some -division in the fertilized egg, presumably that of the first cleavage nucleus, in such a fashion as to result in the formation and development of two embryonal areas upon a single blastodermic vesicle.

Triplets and Other Multiple Births

The subject of twins and their intra-uterine relations is not complete without reference to the similar phenomena presented by triplets and the rarer cases of higher numbers at -a single birth. According to the statistics of Veit the review of thirteen -million birth records in Prussia shows that cases of twins occur once in every 88 births, triplets once in 7910, and quadruplets once in 371,126, and Norris, 96, states that twin births occur in New York and Philadelphia in the proportion of 1 to 120, while in Bohemia the proportion is 1 to 60. Mirabeau, 94, states that triplets are most common in multiparous women between thirty and thirty-four years of age, where they occur once in 6500 births. Above quadruplets authentic cases are, as might be expected, very rare, but the Index Catalogue of the Surgeon-General’s Library at Washington reports (according to Gould and Pyle, 97) 19 cases of quintuplets and two cases of sextuplets. Acase of seven at a birth is recorded, according to Barfurth, upon a memorial tablet of the year 1600, found at Hameln an der Weser, and the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal of Sept. 26, 1872 (Gould and Pyle) gives numerous authentic details of a case in which eight children, all alive and healthy, but rather small, were produced at a single birth. This number may serve as a limit for authentic cases, but numerous mediaeval authorities -are considerably more liberal in the matter.

Our immediate interest here centers about the details of intra-uterine relationship-s, and of sex and general resemblance; and, as might be expected, details are very meagre and are often lacking in particulars quite essential to the present argument, although data enough have been discussed here to render it probable that in multiple births over two in number, the same two classes exist as in the case of twins, and that the individuals of a set may be all -duplicates, or all fraternal, or, what seems to be more common, both sorts may exist in the same set. When larger numbers than three are involved, it seems possible to divide the individuals into two or more groups in accordance with this distinction; thus in quintuplets two may be duplicate twins, while the other three may form a set of duplicate triplets, if the expression be allowed, or there may be two sets of duplicates and a fraternal member, and so on.

As in determining the type of twins, the three sets of data which are of use here are (1) the intra-uterine relationships, (2) the sex and (3) the general physical appearance, and it seems thus far impossible to obtain all three sets of data in any one instance. The conclusions are, therefore, in the line of inference, but as such, particularly with the study of twins to guide us, they seem fairly safe, and may be utilized as prophesies or a priori deductions with which the_ data obtainable in the future may be compared.

The obstetrical phenomena observed in these cases are not numerous, but taken in connection with the similar study of twins, are extremely suggestive. Schultz-e says that in instances of triplets his Case III (see above), with a single chorion, has been noted, and also Cases I an-d II, with separate chorions. [The first instance is evidently a case in which all the individuals are of the duplicate type and the others are undoubtedly fra-ternal.] In another case one blastodermic vesicle was independent and distinct from the others, while the other two were related as in Case III [evidently two duplicates and one fraternal]. Sperling reports a case like the second one of Schultze in which each individual had its own chorion, amnion and placenta, and in which both sexes were represented [fraternal type]. In a case of quintuplets (Schultze) the five individuals were divided into two groups, one of three and the other of two, each group with -one placenta and a single amnion. [Probably a set of twins and a set of triplets, each of the duplicate type, and born at the same time, 13. e., the groups were fraternally related. The fact of the enclosure of the members of ‘each group within a single amnion interprets this as two simultaneous instances of Case IV, and suggests the danger of the fusion of the individuals of each group into a composite monster, owing to the necessary proximity of the -embryonal areas]

Concerning the possibility of sex in multiple births, it is evident mathematically that triplets must be either of the same sex or else two must be of one and one of the otlrer; None of these cases postulate much concerning the intra-uterine conditions or the type of individual, except that where both sexes are represented, they cannot -all be of the duplicate type. In such a case the two that are of the same sex may be duplicates or not. In quadruplets, of which reference to 72 cases is found in the Index Catalogue of the Surgeon-General’s Library at Washington (Gould and Pyle) the case becomes still more complicated and practically nothing can be postulated from sex data alone save a certain number of probabilities. In one case, for instance, two girls possessed -a single placenta between them while the two "others, apparently girls also, had each her own placenta. Here little can be told owing to the insufficiency of data, but it may be surmised that the first two -were duplicate and the last two fraternal. Another case reported in which there were two boys and two girls, all united to one placenta, is a little diflicult to classify, but the union -of placenta; may have been due in part to the close approximation, and it is possible to consider the case one of two sets of duplicates, related set to set as in Case II.

As regards quintuplets, I have seen reports of the following combinations of sexes, although the other data were insuflicient to draw any conclusions W11a’teV-‘GT2 99999, cZ‘c?‘<§‘c§‘9, o"c§‘<§‘95?, 999078‘ In each of two of sextuplets there were four boys and two girls and in at least one of these (Vasalli, 88) there was a common placenta for all. In the only authentic case of octuplets which I have been able to find (Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, Sept. 26, 1872) there were five boys and three girls.

Concerning the third set of data, that of physical identity, although of extreme importance in the present argument, no mention is made in any of the cases above quoted, evidently because they were the reports of obstetricians who had no opportunity of following the cases into later years. Another cause of this lack of evidence is the great liability of the death of at least one of the set before they have matured sufficiently to show individual characters. We are thus forced to depend upon such data as can be obtained concerning older children and adults, in which cases the intra—uterine conditions_ are no longer obtainable, and it seems well—nigh impossible with such observations as have been taken up to the present time to obtain the three sets of coordinate data from any one case. This has resulted in part from the difficulties in the way of obtaining data requiring observations several years apart, but in great measure also from the lack of theories to show what data are needed, and thus each observer has obtained what seemed of interest to him. Although it is very evident that a busy practitioner during the rounds of his daily and often nightly visits has but little time for detailed observations beyond those called for by the actual needs of the cases, yet learning is advanced by just such data as those which he has the opportunity to collect, and it is by the compilation of facts like these that most important generalizations may be ultimately obtained. Any facts obtained and communicated to the writer or to any one else at work upon the theoretical side of the subject will further the advance of general knowledge in this field.

So far as I have been able to learn there is, as in the case of twins, a general belief that triplets and quadruplets ought to look very much alike, but the data obtained from the placental conditions certainly suggest that cases of fraternal components may also occur, either with or without the combination of duplicate components in the same set. One sees occasionally photographs of duplicate twins or even quadruplets employed for the purpose of advertising some infant’s food or similar goods, but, although the probabilities are that they are authentic, there are numerous possibilities of deception known to modern photography, even to the repetition of a single person upon one and the same plate, thus rendering data from these sources a little too unreliable for use in this place. I have obtained, however, -a genuine case of triplets, the components of which are all duplicates of one another. A photograph was taken of these at the age of eighteen and exhibits a remarkable degree of resemblance. In early life the physical identity of these triplets must have been complete, as the following extract will show, taken from a letter concerning them written by -a lady who, when a young girl, knew the triplets as children. “I have seen twins that looked very much -alike, but I could see a difference when they were together. I could not see any difference in these triplets when they stood in a row before me, and I never saw any one else who could, except their mother. She said she could, but I doubted it ; they used to fool her often. When they were babies she kept different colored beads around their necks to tell them by. They always weighed on the same notch until they were seven years old, then one gained half a pound more than the others.” “

Duplicates Among Lower Animals

It is altogether likely that the phenomena of duplicate twins and other similar combinations are not confined to man but that they are more or less common among the lower animals. In mammals that produce several young at a time, it is probable that the components are mainly fraternal, but it is also likely that there may be occasionally one or even more sets of duplicate components in a given litter among their normal and contemporaneous brothers and sisters.

Observations upon this point are best made by a study of the intrauterine relationships, although in piebald domestic animals there is often sufficient individual differentiation to render possible observations along the line of personal resemblance, characters in color and marking taking the place of those in facial expression. Regarding lower vertebrates, especially birds, a large number of instances have been recorded, some of which are of interest in this connection. Thus, v. Kdlliker describes a hen’s egg containing two embryos, each with its own amnion and allantois, but sharing betwen them a single yolk to which each was attached by its own independent yolk-stalk, and M. Braun has noted a similar condition in the lizard. These cases are cited by Schultze and placed by him under his Case III, given above. The mature results of these would certainly have been duplicate twins, either separate or united in the umbilical region. For invertebrates the very numerous experiments of Wilson, Morgan and many others, performed upon the alecithal eggs of numerous marine forms, and in which separate individuals are formed by shaking apart the early blastoderms, suggest that the same result may occasionally take place spontaneously. The individuals thus artificially produced are undoubtedly genuine duplicates, and the process seems in every way comparable with the phenomena postulated above as occurring in the vertebrates, making allowance for the complications introduced in the latter case by the presence of yolk-sac and other extra-embryonal organs.

‘When they were little girls one of them confided one day to a friend that she had been bathed three times that morning, while the others confessed that they had not been bathed at all, an incident that emphasizes their complete bodily identity at that period.

Relation or Duplicate Twins to Double Monsters

The fact that in these experiments with invertebrates an incomplete separation of the components will produce various types of double monsters suggests that certain instances of these latter among vertebrates such as have been especially recorded in the case of man and other mammals, may be due to a. similar origin. The opposite principle, also, that of the fusion of what were originally either separate eggs or separate blastoderms, seems also to obtain in some instances, as would be very apt. to be the case where two blastoderms are enclosed by a single amnion (Schultze’s Case IV), “ein Fall . . . der den nachsten Uebergang zu den Doppelmissbildungen darstellt,” but in this case the two resulting compounds would not be symmetricaly joined nor of equal development.

Aside from these and similar speculations, nothing is definitely known concerning the real origin of either equal or unequal composite monsters, although these phenomena have been a favorite subject for speculation in all ages, and have given rise to numberless theories. Ofithese the most plausible seem to me those based upon the experiments with the eggs of invertebrates and upon the intra-uterine relations just considered, but, although we have these phenomena on the one hand to serve as causes, and the various types of composite monsters as results,’ the connection between the two is still mainly a matter of conjecture, -and we are far from being able to explain definitely the relations between the various causes and the equally varied results. It is thus merely as a working hypothesis, upon which to base the facts presented later on in the paper, that I shall attempt here a discussion of the relationships of twins of both sorts to composite monsters, the relationships of the various types of these monsters to one another, and the probable causes which lead to the production of each type.

To present the material for this discussion before the reader, the following list of recorded instances has been compiled, whenever possible from the descriptions of actual observers; much also has been obtained from the various compilations referred to at the beginning of the bibliography. To all these sources I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness.

The classification adopted for this list is purely a geometrical one, and differs but little from that of other authors, the main attempt being to arrange the material in a convenient form for later reference. Later on, in discussing the origin of these monsters, they will be arranged in accordance with their probable physiological relations, in an attempt to show the causes of these phenomena. These relations are expressed also in the general diagrams (Plate A.).

Classified List of Composite Monsters

I. Double Monsters in which the Components, Or Component Parts, are Equal to and the Symmetrical Equivalents of one Another. Diplopagy.

These forms show, wholly or in part, two duplicate components, which are the equivalents of one another in size and development, i. e., homo-dynamous; and are symmetrically placed as equivalent halves of the composite body of which they form a part. Occasionally, through lack of space, limbs and other parts which lie upon the inner aspect of the components, near the line of fusion, become more or less suppressed in their development, which may lead secondarily to a lack of complete symmetry in this region. (Exs. 0sborne’s calf, Blanche Dumas; v. infra.)

1. Each On The Two Components Complete On Nearly So.

Cases included under this division, of which the Siamese twins form a noted example, are plainly duplicate twins, in every respect like normal ones, but with a slight bond of connection uniting them, the position of which may vary but which is so placed as always to arrange the components symmetrically with reference to it, i. e., the bond is confluent with each twin at the same spot anatomically, but, when other than median, the connection is with the right side of one and the left side of the other. The components possess the same, degree of physical identity as is seen in normal duplicates.

a. Connection -in or near the sternal region, usually median, so that the components stand face to face, sometimes more lateral. Thoracopagi. Type: Siamese twins, “Chang-Eng”; male; born in Siam, 1811. Examined at Harvard University in 1829, by Warren. Exhibited throughout the United States and several European countries (exhibition forbidden in France on account of the possible influence upon pregnant women!). finally settled in North Carolina as farmers, under the name of Bunker. Both married. Chang had six children and Eng five, all normal. They died, almost simultaneously, in 1874.

Other cases:

1. Hindoo sisters, described by Dr. Andrew Berry, 1821.

Newport (Ky.) sisters, Austin Medical Gazette, 1832.

Orissa (India) sisters, “Radica-Doodica,” b. 1887.

Arasoor (India) sisters (mentioned by Gould and Pyle, p. 171).

Two sisters spoken of by Swingler; operated upon and both lived.

Swiss sisters, “ Marie-Adele,” b. 1881. Separated at age of five months, but both died. '

b. Connection by the heads, in various regions, usually median. Craniapagi. Type: Geoffrey St. Hilaire’s case. Two sisters, b. 1495 and lived to the age of ten; joined at foreheads, otherwise entirely normal; when one died an unsuccessful attempt was made to separate the other.

Other cases:

1. Daubenton’s case. Union‘ was at occiput; farther details fail.

2. St. Petersburg case. 1885. “ So united that the nose of one, it prolonged, would strike the ear of the other.” This description is hardly clear, and at first thought appears to violate the law of symmetry observed in other cases; probably a juncture at the side of the forehead.

3. A case is reported by Villeneuve, 31, in which the two components are united by the tops of the heads, extending in opposite directions, like ischiopagi, only joined at the anterior instead of at the posterior ends. They are placed in such a manner that they face in opposite directions. This is figured by Forster in his Taf. III, fig. 16.

(An exact counterpart of this, occurring in a hen’s egg, was found in my laboratory in 1895, but unfortunately was not preserved. The chicks were of about the third day and were united along the top of the curve formed by the brain at that age, the heads turning in opposite directions.)

4. With some doubt there may be referred here the case cited by Home, 1790. In this a. single child possessed an inverted head joined to its own, vertex to vertex, the face of the extra head being directed towards the right side of the child. As the supernumerary head was of full size and perfect, and furthermore as there was cicatricial tissue at the neck, it may well be supposed that this head once had a body equal to the other, and that it had suffered an early amputation at the neck. (See also below, under II, 1, c.)

c. Connection at sacrum, the components being placed back to back. Pygopagi. Type: Bohemian twins, Rosalie-Josepha Blazek. These sisters were born at Skreychor, Bohemia, January 20, 1878. They were examined at the age of six months by Dr. August Breisky of the Medical Faculty at Prague. At thirteen they came to Paris and were exhibited to the public at the Theatre de la Gaité, and were carefully examined at that time ( Baudouin, 91). They seemed to have been joined originally back to back, by a flexible connection in the sacro-coccygeal region, but their habitual attitude is such that they face in the same direction, each one diverging about 45° from the direct forward position.“ The planes of the two chests thus form nearly a right angle. The four iliac bones bound a double pelvis, and the four nates include a quadrilateral space, within which are the external organs of a single individual, but with double internal connections, one for each component. The arrangement of these parts is not clear in Baudouin’s description.

Other cases:

1. Negro sisters, Millie-Christine, b. North Carolina, 1851. Exhibited in United States and in France (Paris, 1873).

2. Tynberg"s case. New York, two sisters, b. 1895. Reported by Jacobi in Archives of Pediatrics, October, 1895.

Aside from these more recent cases, there are numerous well authenticated ones of earlier times. Of these (3) the Hungarian twins, Helena-Judith, are, perhaps, the best known. They were born in 1701 and lived to the age of 22. (4) A pair of Italian female twins of this type were born in 1700, and

“ Thus Baudouin, 91, describing Rosa-Josepha. Blazek: “ En les voyant assises 9. cote 1’une de l’autre sur le meme fauteuil, on soupeonne a peine leur union, quand elles sont habillées. Mais 9. peine 1’une d’elles fait elle un léger mouvement, l’autre suit immediatement et se déplace en meme temps."— loc. cit., p. 273-274. 400 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

at the age of five months succumbed to an unsuccessful attempt to separate them. The famous Biddenden maids (5), Mary-Eliza Chulkhurst, appear to have belonged to this type. They were born at Biddenden, Kent, England, in the year 1100, and lived thirty-four years. In accordance with the conditions of a legacy left them, there is still in that place an annual distribution of food combined with several curious customs (cf. Teratologia, 1894-95).’

[The region of attachment of pygopagi often involves the outlets of the pelvic organs, producing various relationships in the different cases. Thus in the Bohemian twins there is a single anus, a single urethra, but two ‘vaginae, two recti and two bladders; in Tynberg’s case, there are two vagina; and two urethrae, but a single anus with a double rectum, divided by a perineum. In others there seems to have been two complete sets of these parts.

d. Connection at ischia, so that the axes of the two bodies extend in a straight line, but in opposite directions (Ischiopagi). Anus and genitals laterally placed between the legs of the some side.—These cases are said to be quite numerous, but seldom if ever live beyond infancy.

Type: As there seems to be no especially celebrated case to serve as a type, I will present a fac—simi1e of an old engraving (fig. 1) evidently drawn from nature, and portraying a “ Missgeburt” that occurred in Hanan, near Frankfort, in March, 1643. This type is so accurately portrayed in the engraving as to reflect great credit upon the artist and upon the genuine scientific observations of the time. It is of interest to compare this with the photographs of the Jones twins, given by Gould and Pyle, p. 183.

Other cases:

1. Oxford (England) sisters, b. 1552, lived but a short time.

2. Paré’s twins, b. 1570, and baptized Louis and Louise. This seems to imply that they were of opposite sexes, but this is intrinsically improbable. It is more likely either that the record is not wholly trustworthy or that the twins were both boys, since girl’s names were frequently bestowed upon boys during that epoch.

7 The Samoan legend of the “ two swimming sisters of the sea” gives a most detailed and perfectly accurate description of female pygopagous twins, leaving it beyond question that the tale is in part a reminiscence of an actual case probably antedating any other record.

The fact of the union between these two sisters ‘_‘ is so clearly brought out in all the legends as to lead one to the belief that there must be at least this historic basis, that in Samoan antiquity there must have been a pair of twins united more or less extensively by connecting ligaments. Not only is the fact of the junction clearly dwelt upon, but the manner of the attachment is no less distinctly stated. This was by a ligament connecting in each member of the couple a point on the spine high up between the shoulder blades. The sisters were thus brought back to back; when one walked forward the other had to step backward; when one oent over to pick up anything on the ground the other was lifted in the air and borne on her sister’s back. In every account of the twins explicit mention is made of these inconveniences and without the omission or alteration of a single material particular.” [Quoted from Llewella Pierce Churchill, in Forest and Stream, August 24, 1901.]

3. Irish sisters, b. County Roscommon, Ireland, 1827, baptized Mary and Catherine. One was dark haired and the other blonde. (!)

4. French sisters, b. 1838, baptized Marie-Louise and Hortense-Honorine; exhibited at Paris, but soon died.

fiG. 1. Case of ischiopagous duplicates born at Hanan, near Frankfort, Germany, March 11, 1643. Fae—simile of a contemporary engraving in the author's possession.

fiG. 2, a. and b. Case of imperfect ischiopagous duplicates, showing upon one side a double bilateral limb, composed of halves belonging to each component. Born in Cadiz, Spain, May 30, 1818.

c. Monstrurn Anglicum, born in Salisbury, England, October 26, 1664 [after Licetus].

5. Ceylonese brothers, b. 1841; exhibited at Colombo, Ceylon, but lived

but a short time. Arms and genitals single. 6. Millville (Tenn.) sisters, b. about 1867; exhibited in New York. 402 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

7. Ohio sisters, Minnaand Minnie finley; described by Goodell in 1870. 8. Jones twins, b. in Tipton Co., Indiana, June, 1889; sex not given; exhibited for some time and‘died at Buffalo, N. Y., February, 1891.

Aside from typical cases like the above, in which both components are complete, with well developed legs. there are numerous instances in which the legs of one or both sides show a greater or less reduction, with a corresponding modification of the genitals and anus. Cases like the one figured here (fig. 2 a and b) with one pair of legs represented by a doubly bilateral stump are of great interest, as coming under the same category as the median arms and legs of such cases as those of subdivisions 2 (a) and 2 (c) below.

The case figured in fig. 2 (c) is logically of great importance, as it furnishes a connecting link between ischiopagi and such monsters as the Tocci brothers (2 (d) below). It may be considered either as (1) a case of imperfect ischiopagi like that of fig. 2 with the median leg. suppressed, or equally well as (2) monsters like the Tocci brothers with a greater divergence between the two bodies. The monster in question is the famous “Monstrum Anglicum,” born to Mrs. John Waterman, Salisbury, England, October 26, 1664, and although the event is now so remote it rests upon unquestionable authority. At the same birth there was produced also a normal female child.

e. Connection along the side of the body, so that the components are definitely right and left. Inner arms represented by a bilateral median limb. (Ectopagi.)

Type: The only case which I am able to find is that of Regnault, figured both by Forster, l. c., Taf. IV, fig. 4, and by L. Blanc, 93, fig. 111. This figure I have reproduced here (fig. 3), as it serves as an interesting transition between this subdivision and the next.

F6rster’s description is as follows: “Weiblich; ein mittlerer Arm mit doppelter Hand. Brust und Bauch seitlich verschmolzen.”

Were one to imagine the two inner legs represented by a bilateral median member, as in the case of the median arms, the monster would be

Fm. 3. Reg'nau1t’s ectopage the exact counterpart of Fenn’s fetus or of the [after 1“ B"- Wiirzburg case No. 75 (2 c below).

2. The Two Components Equal To One Another, But Each One Lnss Than An Entire Individual.

These cases form a graded series, illustrating almost every transition from the cases cited under (1) to those of single and otherwise normal individuals, with a duplication of a restricted median area, like that of the genitalia. The doubling often affects one end of the body alone, thus producing a monster single below and double above, or double below and single above.

It is to be noticed that in cases in which the doubling involves the head there are two distinct personalities, one for each head, and that in each half of the undivided or median portion the sensation is referred to the head of the corresponding side, although there is usually a narrow zone of common sensation along the median line. When the head is single there is but a single personality.

a. Components separate above and united in the pelvic region, but with a single perfect leg each, the outer -in each case, while the two inner legs are represented by a double median appendage which is bilateral, and may be well developed or rudimentary.

These monsters and those included under (b) and (c), although existing mainly in the form of fetuses in museums, form the necessary connecting links between the last group and the type represented by the Tocci brothers. In these the inner arms or legs (or in rare cases both) are represented by double members which consist so plainly of two symmetrically placed components united together that one is strongly tempted to consider it a. fusion of two originally independent limb components. Instead of this, in accordance with the theory supported by this paper, such double limbs must be looked upon rather as parts, the anlagen of which were incompletely separated, and were thus not allowed to develop independently of one another.

This and other similar points will be taken up more fully later on, when a. resume is made of all double forms with attempts at their explanation.

Type: fisher’s case 43 (quoted from Walter, Obsewationes anatomicas, Berlin, 1775). This monster was one of twins born to Anna Maria Woblack, near Berlin, November 17, 1773, all of the male sex. One of these was a normal, healthy child, the other the double monster in question. “The placenta was a. single mass, to the opposite sides of which two cords were attached, one for the single, the other for the double fetus; the cord of the latter was three yards long. The normal and abnormal fetuses were both enveloped in a single and common chorion.”

As for the double monster, the type of this subdivision, fisher states that “the vertebral columns are complete in both (components). Between the two sacra there was found a shovel-shaped osseous mass, consisting of rudimentary fused iliac bones, from the lower part of which hung a median lower extremity, which was attached by ligaments. This compound posterior pelvic extremity contained a femur; a tibia, which was thick and bent at an angle; the usual tarsal bones; seven metatarsals, six of which formed a row; the seventh and largest supported two toes which were webbed.”

Other cases:

1. Marie-Rosa Drouin. New-born female infant from Montreal, described by Maccallum in 1878.

The two complete upper components formed a right angle with the common trunk “ which commenced at the lower part of the thorax of eac .” There was a rudimentary buttock between the" two lateral ones, from which projected “a rudimentary limb with a very movable attachment. This limb, which measures five inches in length, and is provided with a joint, tapers to a fine point which is furnished with a distinct nail. It is very sensitive and contracts strongly when slightly irritated.”

This case, with the rudimentary posterior limb, shows close similarity both to the type above (fisher’s case 43) and to those of (d) below, since, with the exception of this small median rudiment, the case is identical, save in sex, with that of the Tocci, including the median buttock, while on the other hand, it differs from the type of this subdivision merely in the lesser development of the median leg.

b. Like (a) but united from the shoulder downwards and with a median anterior limb, or limb-rudiment, and no median leg.

Type: Barkow’s case, cited by fisher, 66.

The two components were united from pelvis to shoulder, and were apparently single below the waist, with a single pair of legs. In place of two median arms, such as are seen in the cases under (d), a median bilateral member appears, attached to what is apparently a double shoulder girdle, formed of equal contributions from the two components. A sketch is given of the bones of this median limb, which shows an abnormally broad humerus, to which are articulated a median ulna (double) and two radii, laterally placed. The digits are ten in number, not palm and palm, as in Fenn’s fetus above, but side by side, the ulnar sides at the median line (fig. 4, c and d).

Other cases: 1. Gurlt’s double calf (copied from Gurlt’s Atlas by fisher, fig. 5). This is so similar to the last that a detailed description is unnecessary. The duplication extended, however, farther down the back and there seemed to be two nearly complete vertebral columns and two tails.

2. Meckel’s fetus. Carefully dissected, described and figured in a large folio, published 1815.

The inner arms are represented by a median rudiment which proceeds from a. double shoulder girdle. -The rudiment consists of two joints called humerus and antebrachius by the author. _

3. Gruber’s fetus (1859, “ Thoracogastrodidymus I ”), is of great interest here since it is like that of Meckel (2), except that the median arm rudiment is considerably smaller. There is but a step between this and the “ Thoracogastrodidymus, Case II,” of the same author, described below.

4. Zimmer’s “Dicephalus tribrachius,” figured by Forster, 61, in Taf. VI, fig. 4, evidently belongs here. The fact that the left component suffers from other defects is plainly a mere coincidence, without significance in our present study.

c. Forms which, like (a) and (b), consist of two laterally united components, but with a median double limb, or limb-rudiment, from both anterior and posterior limb-regions.

Type: Fenn’s fetus; described by J. Wyman; specimen in Harvard Medical School (fisher, 65, pp. 276 E.).

This is the best case of all to illustrate the real double" composition of these median appendages, since neither the arm nor the leg is really rudimentary but both are of perfectly bilateral symmetry and show the two equal components which, had the anlagen separated a little more, might each have formed two separate and perfect members.

As this is so important a case, a rough tracing of fisher’s plate, with a. detail of the median foot, is here presented (fig. 4, a and b). The description of the median appendages is as follows: The arm is double and symmetrical, and the foot is “ compound and provided with two groups of toes, of three each, one right and the other left, and a single large symmetrical toe arose trom the middle of the back of the foot. This toe had a nail on each side” (fisher).

Other cases:

1. Wiirzburg Pathol. Coll., No. 75. Three figures of the skeleton of this fetus are given by Forster, l. c., Tat. VI, figs. 5-7, and show a condition almost identical with that of Fenn’s fetus.

2. Tulp’s fetus, quoted by Licetus, in the appendix to his “ De Monstris,”

' ed. 1665. The description is accompanied with an excellent engraving and shows a. specimen closely resembling Fenn’s fetus, but with the double hand components complete and free as far as the wrists. Although Licetus is very unreliable and fantastic, this case is undoubtedly authentic, since it rests upon the authority of Nicolaus Tulp and is in strict accordance with other observed facts.

fiG. 4. Diplopagi with double _media11 limbs. (a) Fenn’s fetus, described by J. Wyman. Specimen in Harvard Medical School Collection. (b) Median foot of (:1), dorsal view. (c) Ba.rkow’s fetus. (:3) Skeleton of median arm of (c).

[All after fisher, his figures 53, 54, 5'7 and 58.]

d. Components united at pelvis, above which they are distinct, each with head and pair of arms; the pelvis is often partly doubled, but with usually a single set of external median parts and with a single pair of legs, each one of which belongs to the upper component on its own side.

Type: Tocci brothers, Giovanni-Batista and Giacomo; born, province of Turin, Italy, 1887. The components were separate and normal down to the sixth rib, but possessed “ a common abdomen, a single anus, two legs, two sacra, two vertebral columns, one penis, but three buttocks, the central one containing a rudimentary anus.” A good photograph of these is reproduced in an article by H. L. Osborne, 02,

Other cases:

1. Normandy sisters, reported as having been seen in Normandy in 1062.

2. Bateman twins, male, b. in 1529.

3. Scottish brothers, b. about 1465; lived 28 years.

4. Swiss twins, male, b. 1598; lived at least 30 years. “ So joined that at rest they looked upon one another." They married a single wife.

5. Ritta—Christina, b. Sardinia, 1829. They “joined in a common trunk at a point a little below the mammae.” They died at an early age.

e. Two separate and equal heads and necks upon a single trunk which is normal, or with some duplication. at the shoulders, and with a single pair of arms. [In this especial care must be exercised to distinguish between cases in which the two heads are equal, i. e., duplicates, and those in which one appears as an outgrowth or “ parasite ” of the other. Only the first of these belongs here, the other is not a case of true duplicates; in the one the components are homodynamous, in the other heterodynamous]

Type: As there seems to be no recent case of a human monster of this sort, we may take as a. type the two-headed turtle described by Barbour, 33. This is referred to also by Bateson, 94, who reprints Barbour’s figure. This phenomenon seems to be especially common in snakes.

Other cases:

1. Double-headed girl of 1665; each head was baptized. It lived but a. short time.

2. Milanese girl (of about the same date). Two heads, but the rest apparently single; after death she was found to have two stomachs.

(The numerous cases cited in which one head is described as ugly or deformed are doubtless to be referred to 11, below.)

[A highly interesting case was dissected by Dr. Wenzel Gruber and figured by him in his memoir of 1859. Externally it would belong in this subdivision, but the skeleton displays two complete backbones, including Coccyx; between which, in the sacral region there is a small spade-shaped piece representing the rudiment of the of the two internal ossa innominata.

The inner ribs are complete in number butstrongly united, and there is a small rudiment of the inner shoulder girdle. Gruber figures this under the name “Thoracogastrodidymus, Case II”; his “Case I” of the same name possesses a visible median arm rudiment, and has been described above under (b).]

f. Like the last two, but with the two compound heads incomplete and united to one another.

Type: Moreau’s case; exhibited in Spain. Possessed a fused head, with two noses and two mouths; each component had a perfect eye, the outer, while the two inner eyes were represented by a poorly developed median eye, with two pupils.

Other cases:

Buffon mentions a cat which was the exact counterpart of Moreau’s case (see also Forster, Taf. I, fig. 1-6).

A less marked class of defects, in which a single and otherwise normal individual possesses a double tongue, double uvula, or other doubling in the region of nose, mouth or throat. undoubtedly belongs here, and represents the process of doubling in its inception. These must be carefully distinguished, however, from cases of cleft palate, harelip, etc., which are due to a. failure of perfectly normal parts to close in the median line, and which have no relation whatever to the present subject. (Compare the note below under diphallic terata (i) ).

[Up to this point the cases cited are those in which the duplication becomes gradually reduced below while the two components remain distinct above; the remaining cases cited under this subdivision will be those which show the opposite principle, that of duplication below with a single head and body. Here also the cases will be arranged in a decreasing series, ending as in (f) with a single body showing but a few traces of the two components.]

g. Two nearly complete components, joined front to front over more or less of the trunk region, but with a single neck and with the heads more or less completely fused into a single compound mass. The half-faces of the two components meet in the plane of union and form single faces of a varying degree of completeness, placed laterally with respect to the components. Janiceps.

These are the so-called Janus-headed monsters, two varying degrees of which are represented in fig. 5. At first sight these monsters seem at variance with the general plan of diplopagi, since what appears to be the face

fiG. 5. Lateral View of two cephalothoracopagi (Janus monsters), showing dilferent degrees of separation. The face which is towards the observer is duplicated in these monsters by another one on the opposite side, and thus from the dorsal aspect of either component there appear two proflles looking in opposite directions. Each lateral face is in reality composed of halves contributed by the two components.

components are placed laterally with respect to the trunks; but if the plane dividing these latter be conceived as passing through the faces also, it becomes evident that what seems a single face is made, in each case, of the right half of one component and the left half of the other, and that thus the two components are as completely bilateral as in other cases. The case is identical with that of the laterally placed genitalia in ischiopagi.

h. One head and one trunk (and consequently a single individual), but with double pelvic organs and two pairs of legs (dipygvs).

Type: Wells’ case, Mrs. B., born May 12th, 1868, lives in Birmingham, Ala. Normal down to the third lumbar vertebra, where the duplication begins, resulting in a fused double pelvis, and two pairs of legs; of these latter the inner ones, although of normal shape, are somewhat reduced in size, either from lack of room for development or in part from disuse, since the outer legs alone are used in walking; two sets of external genitals, normally placed with reference to the two pairs of legs; two bladders, two ani and two rectums. “ The nates from below appear as those of two individuals with a distinct cleft between them. . . . . The functions of the duplicated organs are dual and entirely independent of each other, micturition and defecation occurring at different times on the two sides. . . . She was married shortly after her eighteenth birthday. . . . She is now in good health, is very intelligent, is perfectly able to attend to her household duties, and was twenty years old on the 12th of May, 1888.” (Wells, 33, an illustrated account.) Shortly after her marriage, she became pregnant upon the left side, but an abortion was induced owing to the small size of the pelvic outlet. [The above is a most important case, stated by Wells to be the only known instance in man of such a complete doubling, although several cases have been observed in other animals. Gould and Pyle, however, refer to a case cited by Heschel in 1878, that of a girl of 17, with double parts below the second lumbar vertebra. There are certainly other known cases in which the duplicity is less complete and the inner legs more rudimentary, and of these the following will form a transition to the next type (i) of this subdivision.] Other cases:

Blanche Dumas.

I am unfortunately unable to find any original description of this important case, and was at first utterly misled by the only illustration of her which I have seen, copied both by Wells and by Gould and Pyle. Here the pelvis appears incompletely double, and one is at first misled by the presence of but one leg between the two normal ones and that not a median but lateral one. It seems, however, that there is also a rudiment of a fourth leg, and we have only to admit the possibility of a check to its growth at an early age through lack of space, as was seen in the calf described by Osborne, c2, and the case becomes clear. The inner leg which appears in the illustrations seems to be the right one of the left component, while the rudiment is the left one of the right component. There are two distinct sets of genitals, presumably placed in the normal position relative to the four original legs as in Mrs. B. By the side of the rudimentary fourth leg there is a rudimentary mamma, an anomaly often associated with redundant lower limbs (cf. Louise L. and Bechlinger’s case, given below). It is noteworthy that in both Mrs. B. and Blance Dumas, one of the outer legs, the left in both cases, exhibits talipes.

i. In most respects a normal single individual, but with a duplication of some or all of the median pelvic organs, often accompanied with a median leg rudiment composed of two united halves belonging to the two components.

Type: Jean Baptista dos Santos. A Portuguese (gypsy?), born at Paro about 1845, the subject of numerous papers (cf. London Lancet, August, 1865; also American reprint, January, 1866; fisher, 55, etc.). The man was wholly normal save in the pelvic region, which showed an exact duplication of the external genitals, and a median third leg, depending from an extra median pelvic bone of unknown nature. The penes were normal and nearly equal in size, with a half scrotum on the outer side of each and a median scrotum evidently composed of the fused inner halves. The outer sacs held each a normal testis, and the median one originally contained two which ascended into the abdomen at the age of ten. The median leg was double and apparently symmetrical at first, but it was dislocated in two places by the Portuguese chemist who officiated at his birth, that it might afterwards be doubled up and thus put out of the way. During later life he strapped it to his normal right leg and to his right side. This treatment well explains the slight lack of bilateral symmetry in the adult member. The foot bore ten toes, the two great toes in the center; the two outer toes of each component were

' Webbed. In photographs of dos Santos as an infant the median member is

quite symmetrical in spite of its injuries. Other cases: Bechlinger’s case.

A female counterpart of dos Santos was reported from Para, Brazil, in 1888, by Bechlinger; the genitals were duplicated but otherwise normal and she possessed “a third leg attached to a continuation of the processus coccygeus of the sacrum, and in addition to two well-developed mammae regularly situated, there were two rudimentary ones close together above the pubes.”

Aside from the above there have been reported several cases of diphallic terata, all of which so far as known (20 cases) have been enumerated by Ballantyne and Skirving, 94-95. Of these one or two are doubtful, and some of the others do not come under the present head. Those that do belong here show “ all the degrees of duplication . . . from a fissure of the glans penis to the presence of twodistinct penes inserted at some distance from each other in the inguinal region.” With these cases there is commonly associated the doubling of other topographically related parts; among these may be mentioned “more or less completely septate bladder, . . . . double anus, double urethra, increased breadth of the bony pelvis with defect of the symphysis pubis, and possibly duplication of the lower end of the spine.” I t must be noticed that in all of the cases here considered there is an actual doubling of certain of the median parts, although there may be at the same time a defect in the median line. This would sharply distinguish all such cases from those of episadias, hypospadias, etc., which are simply cases of arrested development, “Hemmungsmissbildungen,” and are caused by the failure of two lateral anlagen to close in the median line. Compare the distinction between the cases of double tongue, double uvula, etc., mentioned above, and such defects as hare-lip and cleft palate.

II. Unequal And Asymmetrical Monsters, One Component Of Which Is Smaller Than And Dependent Upon The Other. Autosite And Parasite

These monsters consist of two components of very unequal development, the one (autosite) being normal or nearly so, and the other (parasite) quite incomplete and attached to the first as a dependent growth, usually adhering to some point upon the ventral side.

To my knowledge this form of monster has never been studied for the purpose of testing whether or not the two components were ever originally physical duplicates, and the relation between them is such, that is, the subordination of one to the other, that, even in cases in which the parasite is furnished with a face, it is altogether probable that any original similarity of features would have been lost. In the records of cases accessible to me in which the parasite possesses sex, it seems always to be the same as that of the autosite, but that in itself is no proof that the components were originally duplicates, although, in accordance with the theories advanced here, it seems probable that the latter is always the case.

This class of monsters seems harder to arrange in groups than does the preceding and the following attempt is mainly for the purpose of putting the various cases in a convenient form for consideration.

1. Parasite Attached To The Outside Or The Autosite

a. Parasite possessed of a head, or head and arms, usually attached to the autosite at or hear the epigastrium.

Type: Lazarus Johannes Baptista Colloredo, b. Genoa, 1617. Exhibited all over Europe. Autosite normal, bearing at the lower sternal region a parasite which consisted of a trunk, one thigh, two arms and a well formed head. The parasite gave signs of independent existence, but the eyes were closed and nothing was ingested by its mouth. The man was examined by Bartholinus. This case seems to be unique in the completeness of the parasite, but several other cases, in some of which the parasite consisted of a head alone, are on record.

Other cases (less complete than the type) :

1. Dickinson’s case, 1880. Child of five years, with a. supernumerary head attached by a broad base to the lower lumbar and sacral region.

2. Havana case. Examined by Montare and Reyes. Girl of seven months with an imperfect accessory individual attached between the xiphoid cartilage and the umbilicus. The accessory head was imperfeet, but had hair; the parasite had in part a separate sensation.

Moreau’s case. Infant born in Switzerland in 1764. The parasite seems to have resembled that of Colloredo; it was amputated by a ligature.

b. Parasite consists of the legs and more or less of the lower part of the body, without a head; attachment to autosite as in 1.

Type: Laloo, Hindoo boy born about 1876; exhibited in dime museums all over the United States. The parasite was dressed in girl’s clothes and was said to be female, but was in reality a male. The parasite possessed arms, but no head, and had no separate sensation.

Other cases:

1. A-Ke, a Chinaman, exhibited in London early in the nineteenth century, and now largely represented by wax models in continental museums. Case similar to last.

2. Louise L., “La. dame aux quatres jambes,” born in 1869. Parasite consisted of two atrophied legs on a rudimentary pelvis, attached ventrally to the normal pelvis; two rudimentary mammae at insertion of legs. “The woman could localize sensation in the parasite except in the feet.” She married and bore two normal daughters. [In some respects, e. g., the rudimentary mammae, this case is strikingly similar to Blanche Dumas and to Bech1inger’s case (see above), except that here there is no doubling of parts in the autosite.]

3. Gustav Evrard. Case described by Guerin. The parasite consisted of two imperfect legs depending from the left buttock; but, as in the case of Louise L., there were no doubled parts in the autosite. This last fact, as well as the complete asymmetry of the parts, suggests that it is a case of parasite and autosite, although in many ways both this and the preceding are similar to Blanche Dumas and others cited under I, h and t‘.

4. Winslow’s case. A girl of twelve, who died at the Hotel Dieu, in Paris, in 1733. A parasite female lower half hung from the left flank. Sensibility was common, i. e., felt by the autosite.

c. Parasite attached to head of the autostte. This is frequently in the form of a supernumerary head or merely a face, and may be attached to the side or back of the head, or in some other place.

Home, 1790, figures a case in which the supernumerary head is attached by its vertex to the vertex of the autositef

A parasite attached to the jaw bone is termed an epignathus.

2. Pabasite Developed Within The Autosite, Usually In The Body Cavity, But Occas1Onally In Other Regions

These Form Tumors Which Usually Increase And Have To Be Removed By Operative Measures. Commonly Termed “ Fetus In Fetu.”

These cases, which it is not necessary to classify in detail, have been rather commonly reported for several hundred years; the parasite ranges in completeness from an almost perfect fetus to a shapeless mass containing bits of organized tissue, the so-called teratomata or dermoid cysts. Thus Blundell, 23-29, reports the case of “ a boy who was literally and without evasion with’ child, for the fetus was contained in a sac communicating with the abdomen and was connected to the side of the cyst by a short umbilical cord; nor did the fetus make its appearance until the boy was eight or ten years old, when after much enlargement of pregnancy and subsequent flooding, the boy died.” The parasitic fetus is, however, seldom as perfect as in the above but is more often quite rudimentary. In one case it consisted of “the ribs, the vertebral column, the lower extremities as far as the knees, and the two orbits”; in another “ fetal bones and a mass of macerated embryo” and in another “ hair, molar teeth, and other evidences of a fetus.” In general such parasites show themselves in the autosite during the infancy or childhood of the latter, but, again, they may not appear until adolescence or even adult life. In location such enclosed parasites may be almost anywhere—the abdominal or thoracic cavities, the cranial cavity, the spinal canal, the scrotum, or urinary bladder.


To one who sees in separate duplicate twins the result of the total separation of the first two blastomeres of a developing ovum there is but one rational explanation for diplopagi, or those composite monsters

3 This case may have been that of Craniopagi, one component of which had suflered an early fetal amputation at the neck. See above, under Oraniopagi. 412 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

in which the two components are the duplicates of one another’ and symmetrically united, namely that here a similar tendency to separation has been left incomplete, causing a doubling of those parts only in which the interrelations have been severed. This hypothesis, which is the natural outcome of the recognition of these components as duplicates, finds its best corroboration in the fact that the cases may be arranged in graded series, with almost imperceptible differences between them, and ranging from single individuals with a duplication of some median part, to two individuals united by a slight bond, and thence to free duplicates. Diplopagi do not, however, allow themselves to be arranged in a single series, but in several, in which the two components bear different, although always symmetrical, relations to one another, referable to the various geometrical possibilities in the manner of separation and consequent relative position of the first two blastomeres.

This matter may be made clear by an inspection of Plate A, in which the various known forms of diplopagi are represented in diagrammatic form and arranged in graded series to show their mutual relationship.

These series and the cases representing them are as follows:


A. I. A normal single individual, the right and left halves of which are represented by the c-olors black and white respectively. In the em 9 Although in the great majority of diplopagi the components are evidently physical duplicates, I have collected the three following cases in which differences seem to have been noted. (1) Paré’s case, 1570, baptized Louis and Louise, (2) The Irish sisters, 1827 (v. p. 401), of whom one was said to be dark haired, the other fair, and (3) Marie—Rosa Drouin, 1878, one of whom was said by MacCal1um to resemble the father and one the mother. Should those cases be substantiated they would necessitate a modification of my theory, at least in those special cases, but the reports are hardly conclusive enough to be of serious import. Paré’s case was reported over three hundred years ago, and at a time when feminine names in France were assumed by men. There is no statement to the effect that they were of opposite sex. The other cases are based upon general impressions, in both cases derived from newborn infants, and hence are somewhat unreliable. The most conclusive test to prove or disprove the similarity of the components, both in diplopagi and, when possible, in parasitic monsters, is that of the palm and sole configuration, and it is to be urged that, whenever opportunity afiords, careful prints be taken of the palms, soles and fingers of compound monsters. Such data will prove of the highest importance in the present line of argument.

bryonic development of this the first two blastomeres may be supposed to have shown the normal interrelation.

A. II.——A case of duplicity in certain of the parts of the face and head, resulting from a slight sepa.ration of the first two blastomeres in the region ultimately to become the anterior end of the embryo, after which,

through the disturbed relations of these parts, each separate portion attempted to develop both sides.

Ex.—Moreau’s case. Buffon’s cat.

[Lesser degrees of doubling have been mentioned above in connection with the cases just cited.]

A. III.——Here the original separation was suflicient to involve the entire future head region, and each component blastomere, relieved of the normal stimulus of contact with the other upon one side, has regenerated the other half and thus developed an entire but duplicate head.

EX.—The two-headed turtle of Barbour. Externally Gruber’s “ Case II ” of Thoracogastrodidymus seems to belong here but the trunk is partially double. It forms the link between this and the next, as a little less separation would place it here, a little more in the next section.

A. IV.—Thi-s stage is the first in the series to show the significant phenomenon of a double median limb. In this and in all such cases the limb is a bilaterally symmetrical member, the two lateral surfaces being the same aspect (usually dorsal) and bearing the structures characteristic of the aspect presented. The structure bears so much the appearance of a fusion or coalescence of two originally separate components that many writers, perhaps the majority, speak of them as such. This latter view is, however, manifestly impossible, for, granting that two members, once separate, could ever unite in such perfect juxtaposition as to form a symmetrical piece, it would still be a serious problem to dispose of the -surfaces in contact with each other, and to atrophy each component at such an equal rate that the result would keep the perfect symmetry which these phenomena show. In the diagram there is seen to be a doubled inner arm, contributed to equally by each component.

EX.——T0 illustrate this case we are fortunate in having specimens, carefully described and in part dissected, which represent a graded series. Of these, the first is Gruber’s “ Thoracogastrodidymus I,” which differs from his “ Case II ” of like name (A. III) merely in the presence of a small median rudiment containing a double scapula with a pair of conical acromion processes which together form the skeleton of the free

end. Meckel’s case possesses a larger median rudiment with a humerus 30 414 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

and an “ os antebrachii,” and in Barkow’s fetus there were two radii, a median ulna, and a double hand with the full number of digits.

A. V.——A continuation of the same cause leads to a complete separation of the two inner arm-components, and allows each to develop as an entire organ. These inner arms are usually perfect in form but often show some defect of development which may easily be due to lack of space and the consequent cramped position in which they must be held. This stage is represented by a large number of cases, and is far more common than the intermediate stage represented by the preceding case.

EX.—The Tocci brothers. Ritta-Christina.

A. VI.-—This slight advance on the previous stage is characterized by a rudimentary median leg; otherwise it is like the last. EX.-—Marie-Rosa Drouin.

A. VII.—In this the median limb has attained a considerable degree of development, this being, from the description of the single case recorded, of about the same grade as the arm in Barkow’s case.

Ex.—fisher’s case, 1773.

Here the series ends, since there seem to be no known cases representing the next logical step, that in which the median double leg has separated into two, leaving two complete components, united by a small isthmus, laterally placed. Xiphopagous twins, like the Siamese brothers, often stretch the connecting bond so much that they can place themselves laterally, but the natural position of all such is face to face. The same is true to a lesser extent in pygopagous twins. It seems possible to consider that in this series a.farther separation might affect either the ventral or the dorsal aspect of the body in such a way as to produce respectively either pygopagi or xiphopagi, in which case either would represent the missing stage, but in the present state of our knowledge this cannot be definitely assumed. Thus, in the diagram a space is left for conjoined twins laterally placed, and the series ends with the hypothetical case of separate twins laterally related (A. IX).


B. I.—Here may be put individuals in which there is a greater or less doubling of the median pelvic parts, especially the external genitals. Such cases are rare but include both sexes.

EX.—Several minor cases of duplicity of the external genitals, collected by Ballantyne and Skirving, 94-95.

B. II.—This is like stage IV of series A, with a median leg in place of a median arm, and with a doubling of the pelvic organs in place of the head.

EX.—Dos Santos. Bechlingefs case.

B. III.—In this there is a complete duplication of the body _below the lumbar region, each half furnished with a normal pair of legs, although there may be some lack of development in the inner legs in the same Way and for the same reason as in the case of the inner arms in V and VI of series A.

Ex.—Wells’ case (Mrs. B.).

Beyond B. III there seem to be no authentic cases with ‘laterally placed components, but the first stage of series C, although differing in the geometrical relation of the components, might in other respects stand as B. IV, in Which, in addition to the doubling of pelvis and legs, there is an incipient doubling of the head.

Series C may thus be placed in the same row as B and may be designated as follows:

C. Separation At First From Below Upwards, Succeeded By One From Above Downwards; Components Placed Face To Face.

C. I.——From the umbilical region downwards two separate bodies, chests united and each component less than a whole one; head partly doubled, with two occiputs, faces incomplete, with one median eye on each lateral aspect, formed of equal contributions from each component. An incomplete Janus monster.

EX.—fig. 5 a of this article, originally described by Forster, 61, from the Gottingen collection.

0. II.—-Typical Janus monster, like the last but with the two head components complete or nearly so. The laterally placed faces are in reality the left half of one face joined to the right half of the other, as explained above. Otherwise like C. I.

EX.—fig. 5 b of this article, after L. Blane (I cannot find the original of this).

0. III.—Typical thoracopagi ; they evidently belong in the series with the Janus monsters, from which they differ merely in the more complete separation from above downwards, thus allowing the development of two separate heads and necks.

Ex.—-Siamese twins, Radica-Doodica.

G. IV.—Separate duplicate twins, like A. VIII, but differing geomet rically in their mode of origin. This is probably the commonest type, if we may judge by the frequency of occurrence of thoracopagi. 416 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

D.—-Separation From Above Downward, And None From Below Upwards ; Components Placed Laterally.

This series has the first five stages in common with series A, and diverges from it at stage V (: D. 1), beyond which A shows a separation from below upwards, while D does not, but continues the initial separation from above downwards. This results in (1) a greater and greater divergence of the body axes, and (2) the development of posterior limbs in the angle between them, forming ischiopagi. This method may ultimately result in separate twins as in the other series. The stages, after that corresponding to A. V, are as follows:

D. I.—This is practically the same as A. V (represented by the Toccis and Ritta—Christina), but with the separation a little farther down and the angle between the two trunks a little greater. The amount of divergence seems a variable quantity, and in fact the bodies are capable of some lateral movement. Thus, in the example of this, the “Monstrum anglicum” (fig. 2, c) the bodies are represented in a contemporaneous engraving as almost forming the same horizontal line, but in the figure cited to represent the next stage (fig. 2 a and lo), the bodies form a very divergent V.

D. II.——The farther progress of the separation from above downwards has produced a double rudiment of a median leg, comparable to those of A. VI, B. II, and E; or to the double median arm of A. IV, E and F.

Ex.—Case figured by Forster, Tab. I, fig. 15; after MacLauren, Phil. Trans., Vol. 32. fig. 2 a and b of this article shows a slight advance beyond this.

D. III.—Stage with the upper posterior limbs, i. 6., those in the angle between the trunks, separate but rudimentary.

EX.—An instance of this is given by fisher, 66.

D. IV.—-Typical ischiopagi, with limbs of both sides complete, and with perfect genitals and anus between them, formed by two halves contributed by the two components.

EX.——fig. 1 of this article; -any typical ischiopagi.

D. V.—Here, as in other series, may be placed separate duplicate twins differing from the others merely in their mode of Origin considered geometrically. These, like those resulting from series C, are probably a common type.

In the lower row of the diagram are collected a few more or less unique types of diplopagi, ‘which show relationship to the several series above

given, but which differ in extent of development of some part. They are as follows:

E.—Diplopagi Allied To Ser1Es A, But With The Separation From Below Upward Occurring Earlier Than In The Regular Series.

This results in the formation of a median double leg-rudiment in conjunction with a median double arm.

EX.—Fenn’s fetus, fig. 4 a of this article.

F.—Ectopagi Allied To Series A. And To E, But With The Separation From Below Upward Still Farther Advanced,

giving each body a pair of perfect legs.

EX.——Regnault’s ectopage, fig. 3 of this article.

G.——THEsE_ ARE THE CRANIOPAGI, of which illustrations enough have been cited to form a series, were it not that they do not show much relation to one another. Thus, in'G‘r. St. Hilaire’s case, G. I, the two components are united at their forehead, and in Vil1eneuve’s case, G. II, the union is by the vertices, facing different ways.

It may be supposed in a general way that such craniopagi as G. I result from an extreme separation from below upwards, as in series B and C, perhaps as a continuation of C. II with more separation from below than from above; and that G. II may be related to it as the extreme of the ischiopagous series is to the rest; but in the absence of intermediate forms all this is a mere conjecture. The fact must be acknowledged that in the case of craniopagi we do not as yet possess sufficient data to form a series suggesting their origin.

Whether or not separate duplicate twins result from the craniopagous type cannot be certain, but it seems at least possible, and as such G. III is presented in the diagram. Such a type of twin, if ever formed, must be very rare, corresponding to the infrequency Of conjoined craniopagi.

H.—Here, As H. I And H. Ii Respectively, Are Placed Pygopagi, And The Free Duplicate Twins Which May Theoretically Result From Them.

As pointed out above, under series A, the Origin of pyopagi cannot be determined, in spite of the frequency of the type, since all diplopagi which may be considered as incomplete pygopagi are thus far lacking. There is a temptation to put them in the missing place in series A (A. VIII), in which case there would be no such free twins as the laterally related ones figured as A. IX; but they seem to have no more right there than do the thoracopagi.

At present they are of as uncertain relationship as are the craniapagi, and although of frequent occurrence are best left in an isolated position in the diagram.

IN THE ABOVE SKETCH OF THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS or DIPLOPAGI IT HAS BEEN OFTEN IMPOSSIBLE NOT To SPEAK As THOUGH THE VARIOUS FORMS WERE STAGES IN A CONTINUOUS DEVELOPMENT, AND ONE MUST BE ON HIS GUARD NOT To LOOK UPON THEM AS SUCH. Instead of this they form the varying steps in a process in which each case is fixed, probably from the beginning, and represents but one step, and the process is continuous only in the sense that the various possible eases form a series of almost imperceptible gradation between two limits.

The hypothesis advanced here necessarily presupposes some form of preformation in the egg-cell and in the early blastomeres, but no more than must be granted by any one who studies the various correspondences found in separate duplicate twins, for example, the palm and sole eonfiguration. The main factor, however, in the formation of either a diplopage or a duplicate twin is, however, the changed relationship of the cells, a cell or a part of a cell developing differently when isolated than when in contact with another. A sea-urchin blastornere in the 2—celled stage, when in its normal relation to its fellow, develops but one side of a bilateral larva, but when this contact is severed, it develops both. Similarly, if the relation is lost in- part and retained in part, a double monster is the result from the same cause.

It is manifestly impossible thus to experiment with human eggs or with those of other placental mammals, but the results of observation indicate that what is true in the ease of lower forms, Obtains also here. In mammals the development of the extra-embryonal parts appears at first to greatly complicate the problem, and they certainly do introduce an element which cannot be wholly explained as yet in this connection, but the facts in the case are so numerous, and the relationship of the various forms of diplopagi are so simple and so completely analogous to the results of experiment among lower forms that the close similarity between the two cannot well be doubted.

There yet remains to be accounted for those cases of compound monsters in which the two components are very unequal, sustaining the relationship of parasite and autosite. These are plainly the result of a secondary fusion, probably at an early age, of two embryos developing in close proximity to one -another, perhaps in the relation described in Schultze’s Case IV. The components, in order to be in this relation to one another, must be originally duplicate twins, and as a matter of fact, in so far as the parasite possesses sex, it is always that of the autosite. It may be possible, of course, that under certain circumstances fraternal twins may fuse with one another, but the enclosure in separate ehorions, which seems to be the rule, would normally prevent it.

As stated above, no tests seem ever to have been made in such cases relative to their original physical identity, although in many cases, such as Laloo and Louise L., a comparison of palms and soles or of both, as applied in Part II to the case of separate twins, would be quite possible.

Separate duplicate twins, thus, have successfully avoided two dangers, (1)that of an incomplete separation of the two blastomeres of the twocelled stage, and (2) that of a secondary fusion of the later blastomeres owing to close proximity; in the one case they would have become diplopagi, in the other, one would have been an autosite, the other a parasite.


The main principles -along which theories on this subject, both ancient and modern, have developed, are the following: (1) the principle of excess and defect, (2) the principle of fusion, (3) the principle of fission, and (4) the principle of two original fetuses. These principles are for the most part extremely old and in their modern form differ from the ancient mainly in the more definite application made possible by the advance of knowledge of the subject. Thus where Empedocles spoke of an excess of semen, and Democritus of two “ seeds” We now speak definitely of polyspermy; the theory of Aristotle, who sought for the origin of such monsters in an excess of material, was the precursor of the theory which postulates a doubling of the determinants in the germ-plasm. Another_characteristic of modern theories is that they often make use of two or more of the above principles in combination, although the supporters of the various principles seldom, if ever, agree upon the method of combining them, or in the precise method of their application.

Since almost every teratologist who describes a case develops a theory concerning its origin, it is manifestly impossible here -to attempt a digest of all the recent work in this line, but at the risk of unwittingly omitting many valuable scientific contributions to the subject I will present here what seem to be the principal theories of the present time, selecting as their exponents those authors who have treated the subject in a general way and who have familiarized themselves with a large number of cases.

I.—The first of the modern theories to be considered postulates AN EARLY TOTAL fiSSION or THE EMBRYO, followed in the case of compound monsters by a secondary fusion of the two parts. Of this school the pioneer seems to' have been fisher, 66, Who, although writing nearly forty years ago, anticipated many of our most advanced ideas on the subject. He says that double monsters “ are invariably the product of a single ovum, with a single vitellus and vitelline membrane, upon which a double cicatricula, or two primitive traces, are developed. The several forms of double malformation, the degree of duplicity, the character and extent of the fusion, all result from the proximity and relative positions of the neural axes of two more or less definite primitive traces developed on the vitelline membrane of a single ovum.” In this, by the supposition of a “ double cicatricula,” he implies, to us at the present time, a fission of the original germ, but, although he comes fairly up to this point, he seems to have nowhere definitely expressed as much and such a conception was clearly beyond him at that date. The “ double cicatricula” being present, he supposes the monster to be formed by a subsequent fusion of the “primitive traces.” In true double monsters he recognizes the following characters: (1) “homologous union” (i. e., a symmetrical position of the tw-o components); unity of sex, and (3) the transposition of viscera in one of the components, a condition the necessity of which he somewhat doubts, although he gives several instances of it.

The step that fisher did not take, that of accounting for the “ double cicatricula” in the first place by a fission of a single germ at an early period, was proposed soon after the date of his paper, and probably originated with Dareste, although the idea seems to have been evolved independently by Galton and others at about the same time. Dareste, however, was working upon the subject of double monsters and G"3.ll3OD upon that of duplicate twins, and it seems to have been first applied to both by Perls, 79, who starts in both cases with the fission of an originally single germ, the two resulting parts of which normally become two separate individuals, but which may, in rare cases, fuse secondarily into a compound monster. Thus Blane, 93, describes the origin of ischiopagi as follows: “Les monstres ischiopages résultent, ainsi que l’a montré M. Dareste, de la soudure de deux embryons, opposés par lcur extrémité posterieure et placés dans le prolongement l’un de l’autre” (p. 238). He then explains that if the two embryos fuse along a straight line the legs and pelvic organs have room to develop “ déviés a droite et a gauche,” but that if they form an angle with one another the parts enclosed by this angle suffer, owing to lack of space.

Although not quoted directly from Dareste himself, it is altogether probable that the above clearly represents his views, at least concerning one type of diplopage. The same view is held by his associate, Baudouin, 91, who states that in the production of diplopagi the two primitive streaks unite secondarily at a given angle with one another, and that the variations depend upon (1) the precise epoch at which the fission takes place, and (2) the size of the angle formed by the two axes.

The various arrangement of these axes may be in the form of an upright Y, an inverted A or an X, thus forming three convenient classes.

Kaestner, 98, throws some light on the subject by describing a few actual cases, among them that of a shark’s egg (Pristiurus), which had two germinal discs. As the egg was transparent the -development could be watched, and it was observed that one of these discs soon surpassed the other in size, and that the latter became adherent to the former by the margin. He reasons from this that only in mammals, because of the rudimentary character of the yolk sac, can two such blastoderms ever hope to develop as separate individuals, but that in others (fishes, reptiles and birds) the common yolk must lead eventually to a fusion in all cases.

It will be seen that the principle common to all of the above theories is that of the secondary fusion of two germs, but an insuperable objection to this lies in the co-mplete bilateral symmetry of the two components in true double monsters (diplopagi), since there is no force to oversee and adjust the two components in the exact relationship necessary for this result. That such a fusion may result in the other type of compound monster, that of au-tosite and parasite, seems most probable, a result to which, in all likelihood, the Pristiurus egg of Kaestner would have attained, had it completed its development.

II.—A second class of theories rests upon the supposition of A PARTIAL fiSSION IN A SOMEWHAT ADVANCED EMBRYO, thus doubling the parts affected, and several writers have attempted to prove this principle by practical experiment. Thus Valentine, 77, supposes that he produced a double chick by artificially splitting the “ Keim,” and Gerlach, 83, produced a few very questionable specimens by varnishing the shells of hens’ eggs and leaving an unvarnished space in the form of a V or a Y over the blastoderm.

III.—The RADIATION THEORY of Rauber is somewhat fantastic and difficult to comprehend, and possesses in this connection mainly an historic value. He postulates in the first place a tendency of the germ-cells to radiate in all directions, to assume “eine strahlige Anordnung,” a tendency which leads occasionally to the formation of a. “ Keimring mit mehreren vorderen Embryonalanlagen, statt wie gewohnlich, einer einzigen.” The bifurcation of the anterior end, as taught by Gerlach, Rauber considers a modified form of radiation, and speaks of a radiatio anterior and a radiatio posterior. This theory, like those of Valentine and Gerlach, supposes a splitting of a somewhat advanced embryo, but adds a possible, although very hypothetical, cause.

IV.——Under the head of SUPERFLUITY (the “ monstra in excessu ” of the older writers) may be grouped the theories of several investigators that see a cause for compound monsters in an excess of some of the elements of the original germ. Thus 0. and R. Hertwig, having suggested as a working hypothesis that such cases are the result of polyspermy, attempted to develop double monsters from the eggs of sea-urchins into which more than one spermatozoon had been introduced. The results in this case were wholly negative.

Wiedemann, 94, finds the superfluous material in both the male and female elements and believes that compound monsters arise from the presence of two germinal vesicles on a single yolk, each fertilized by a separate spermatozoon. The great irritation produced by the two spermatozoa on the single egg occasions contractions which tend to draw the two vesicles together. When there is protoplasm enough for two good blastoderms they remain separate, and produce “ die sogennante eineiige Zwillinge; ” when not, a compound monster is the result.

Considerable apparent support has been given to theories like the foregoing by the discovery in the ovaries of various mammals, and recently in man also, of primordial eggs with two nuclei, and of follicles enclosing two eggs, and an interesting discussion was begun by V. Franqué, 98, and taken up by others (see Bibliography, IV), with the final conclusion that the mature result of such phenomena is always two separate eggs, although they may be discharged at one time, even from the same Graafian follicle. There seems to be no reason why those eggs should produce compound monsters, or even duplicate twins, since they must be fertilized by different spermatozoa, but that fraternal twins may often, if not always, result in this way seems probable.

A theory which is in some ways the counterpart of that of a double egg is the one recently suggested by Broman, oz, and based upon the occurrence of various forms of double and otherwise compound (“ atypische ”) spermatozoa in man. Of these he figures a large number of forms and comes to the conclusion that “ die zweischwiinzigen Spermien fiir die Entstehung eineiiger Zwillinge wahrscheinlich eine grosse Rolle spielen lconnen. In derselben Weise konnen wahrscheinlich die drei- oder vierschwanzigen Spermien zu eineiigen Drillingen resp. eineiigen Vierlingen Anlass geben” (Zoo. cit, p. 526).

This theory he extends to doublemonsters because of the existence of all transitional stages and concludes, if we accept the above conclusions “ dass wir auch fur die Genese der Doppelmonstra den atypischen Spermien eine mogliche Bedeutung zuerkennen miissen.”

Another form of the theory of superfluity is that of Windle, 93, who, quoting Sutton, compares the production of a double monster to “ the same tendency which causes dichotomy of the ray in star-fish, or digits in mammals, a tendency which, should it affect the axis of the embryo, will lead to the production of duplex monsters of varying development and different -degrees of union, or even result in viable twins.” He adds: “ This statement, so far as it goes, concisely states the view which I hold on the subject.” In his summary he gives as the ultimate cause for this dichotomy -a superfluity of germ plasm existing in the germ.” '1‘his_ superfluity may be the result of (1) a faulty segmentation of the polar bodies, (2) a faulty formation of the spermatozoon, or (3) polyspermy. His statement that this superfluity in true double monsters leads to a fission “prior to that by which normal development is commenced” is practically an expression of the theory of the partial or total fission of the first two blastomeres, as advocated in the present paper, with the interesting addition of a possible cause for the phenomenon. He causes some confusion, however, in attempting to bring into the same category all. cases of minor duplicity, such as-hyperdactylism, and by asserting that there is “ no gap ” between such cases and true double monsters.

V.———As representative of the FUSION THEORY, by which two original embryos become a composite monster by atrophy of certain parts, we may cite Panum, who holds that all cases involving the doubling of trunk and limbs presuppose two fetuses, originally with a completely or partially double axial anlage, one-half of which has become atrophied during the course of development. He acknowledges, however, that many cases of minor duplicity may be the result of budding.

VI.—A unique theory is that of POSTREGENERATION, recently brought forward by Tornier, 97-01, to explain cases of minor duplicity and later extended so as to include all cases of compound monsters. Tornier has studied experimentally certain of the well-known cases of regeneration found among lower animals, such as the tails of lizards, the limbs of salamanders, etc., and has shown that while a complete loss of the member will result in a simple regeneration of the part, yet that a certain kind of wound, made in the place where the loss usually occurs, yet insufficient to cause the loss of the part, will occasion the growth of a new member in the same manner as though the original had been actually lost, thus producing duplicity. From this he holds that, while such phenomena may occur after birth in certain of the lower animals only, they yet may occur before birth, in birds and mammals, as a result of a lesion affecting the fetus. This seems a reasonable theory when con424 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

fined to such cases as hyperdactylism, but Tornier in a later paper, 01, wishes to go much farther than that and asserts that all cases of double monsters (Zwillingsbildungen) arise in the same manner, and cites, to illustrate his meaning, not only individuals with two heads, and those with two faces (the so-called “ J anus-monsters ”), but also typical thoracopagi. As this theory presupposes an inequality in the value of the two components, since one must be the “ Stammindividuum” from which the second or “Ueberzahliges Individuum” must arise secondarily, it is hard to reconcile with it the exact equality in the development of the two components in the overwhelming majority of cases; and as separate twins of the duplicate type are so closely related to the most complete double monsters, they also must be included in the theory, a supposition apt to give rise to endless dispute among two people thus related as to which was the “ Stamm-” and which the “ UeherzahligesIndividuum.”

VII.—A most unique theory is that of Beard, which he develops in connection with his original biological doctrine of MULTIPLE GERM-CELLS. He considers that the early blastomeres of a metazoon form “ an asexual foundation or larva, the phorozoon, upon which the germ-cells, and with those an embryo, take their origin.” Normally one of these cells develops into an embryo, a mere incident in the life—cycle, but occasionally two or more may thus develop. Thus “if two primary germ-cells undergo normal development, the result is the production of identical twins.” An attempt on the part of two germ-cells thus to develop but with abnormalities on the part of one produces a more or less rudimentary embryo, which may form any grade of morbid growth from an embryoma to an -ordinary tumor or cancer. Wilms has conclusively demonstrated that, for example, all gradations from a highly-organized embryoma down to a simple sarcoma may be met with. In this discussion Beard plainly has in mind the various forms of parasitic monsters alone, since in all of his descriptions of compound forms one component is normal and the other reduced. There is no doubt that, granting his theory in the first place, there would be some logical explanation also for diplopagi, and it will be of interest to see what this author will do with this most important group of composite monsters.

VIII.—As opposed, at least in some particulars, to all of the above hypotheses is that which sees the cause, both of separate duplicate twins and of diplopagi, in the TOTAL OR PARTIAL SEPARATION or EARLY BLASTOMERES, PROBABLY on THE fiRST TWO, as advocated in the present paper. This view as extended to diplopagi seems to have been first clearly enunciated by Bateson, 94, who says: “It is now a matter of common lmowledge that in animals (and plants) division may occur in such a way that two or more bodies may be formed from what is ostensibly one fertilized ovum. But by a similar division, imperfectly effected, the resulting bodies, instead of being complete twins or triplets, may remain united together, frequently having a greater or less extent of body in common.” The italics are my own, and point out with extreme clearness my views on the subject as explained above. Bateson, however, continuing farther in his ideas, and believing that the composite body must show a complete bilateral symmetry, assumes, as fisher did, the need of a sit-us viscerum inversum in one of the components, a view which appears to be upheld in a few instances 1" but fails in others. On this point he finally concludes that the amount of transposition depends upon the time of separation, a view the precise meaning of which is not clear in connection with his former explicit statement that such cases arise from the division of “ what is ostensibly one fertilized ovum,” and suggests an unwillingness to abide by his theory so clearly expressed above.

More recently this theory has been advocated by Sobotta, 00,” although he is uncertain at what point in early development the separation takes place. As opposed to the belief that this point is that of the two-celled stage, he suggests (1) that we do not know whether or not these blastemeres in the human species», are “ aquipotent ; ” (2) that it is difficult to conceive of a force capable of separating these blasto-meres that lie in one egg, protected by the zona pellucida, the oviduct, etc.; (3) that if one supposes a. total separation, as in “ eineiigen Zwillingen,” it is hard to understand how the chorion came to be single, as seems always to be the case in such instances. He does not seem to consider these objections fatal, however, and although he inclines to the belief that the separation takes place during the later cleavage or in the “ Keimblasenstadiuin,” he admits that “ die Ursache der Doppelbildungen auf einem friiheren Stadium zu suchen ist als im ersten Augenblick, wo sie der directen Beobachtung zugéinglich [sind] .” On the other hand he says: “ Vielleicht kann auch bei stark verwachsenen Doppelbildung die Ursache der Storung noch viel splatter einwirken auf die Area embryonalis selbst und selbst

1” For this Bateson quotes Eichwald who finds that in thoracopagi “in almost every case one of the bodies shewed some transposition of viscera, though to a varying extent.” (Pet. Med. Zeitsch., 1870, No. 2.)

11 The original paper of Sobottta has unfortunately not been accessible to me, and I have relied entirely upon the review of the same given by Broman, 02, I hope that, in spite of this disadvantage, his views have been fairly represented.

auf den schon im Entstelien begriffenen Embryo.” The italics are my own and show that, in spite of what seems to be his inclination, Sobotta can hardly be included in this section but belongs rather more to the school of Valentine and Gerlach, who advance the period at which the splitting takes place to some point considerably beyond that of the early cleavage stages (II).

The authors cited above are a small number of tho-se who have expressed their views upon the subject, but it is hoped that the exposition of theories includes practically all that are held upon the subject at the present time. For farther information the reader may consult the bibliography at the end of the paper, especially the papers of Wiedemann and Windle, who enter into the history of the subject in some detail, and also the general works on the subject.

Part II. Studies Of The Configuration Of The Friction—Skin’ (Palms And Soles) In Twins And Triplets


The physical “identity” of duplicate twins, in so far as it has been considered at all, has hitherto rested upon such data as facial expression, color of hair and eyes, and physical proportions; features which, although perfectly reliable as far as they go, lack the definiteness necessary in a scientific comparison.

Facial expression is often strikingly similar in two brothers or two sisters of separate birth, and, on the other hand, genuine duplicate twins may be subjected during life to circumstances that -differentiate them to a marked degree. The same may be said of bodily measurement, even those included in the Bertillon system, since, as will be shown, the

‘The term “ friction-skin” was proposed by me and used in a paper now in press, written by my pupil, Miss Whipple. It designates that modified form of skin found upon the contact surfaces of the ventral aspect of mammalian chiridia. (hands and feet), which consists of ridges placed at right angles to the direction of the most usual forces and designed to prevent slipping after the manner of the milling or grooving in the handles of certain instruments. The ridges themselves, which in the higher Primates cover the entire ventral surface of the hands and feet, are called in the paper referred to " friction-ridges,” a term properly expressing their true function, and hence not misleading as is the term “papillary ridges” hitherto used. A full description of these terms and of the physiological action of the parts involved will be found in Miss WhippIe’s paper.

slightly different external circumstances of nutrition, activity, etc., will develop diiferences not present at first and not directly connected with the question of the original physical identity. In the study of the epidermic ridges of the ventral surfaces of hands and feet, however, we have an exact field for research, since there is a set of characters here present which are laid down in the embryo and persist until death, beyond the influence of any external change. They are, moreover, actual anatomical parts which can be studied and described, counted and compared, and reproduced for illustration by the exact method of printed impressions, a method by which each reader can have the data placed before him as accurately as though he could investigate the objects himself, and in a much more convenient form.

Galton, 92 (pp. 185-187), seems to have been the first to make use of these parts in the study of twins, but he confined his examinations to the apical patterns (finger-tips) alone, and although he was one of the first to formulate a scientific distinction between the two types of twins, yet in these investigations he makes no distinction between them, undoubtedly because in this place his main object was to show their differences and not their similarities. That he then, however, had in mind a more careful biological investigation of exactly this point is shown by the following statement, which is added to the investigations referred to, and which is so exactly the object of a part of the investigation of this paper, that I only hope that my plans, worked out quite independently, and at first without the knowledge of this statement, may not in any way interfere with anything he may have been preparing. He says: “ It may be mentioned that I have an inquiry in view, which has not yet been fairly begun, owing to the want of sufficient data, namely, to determine the miiiutest biological unit that may be hereditarily transmissible. The minutiae in the finger-prints of twins seem suitable objects for this purpose.’” (The italics are my own.)

Since Galton, in the work cited, made no direct use of the epidermic markings in the study of duplicate twins as distinguished from the other types, and since he does not seem as yet to have published any investigation along the line of his statement quoted above, it appears that I have been the first to actually undertake such an inquiry. In my article “Palms and Soles” (Amer. Jour. Anat., 1902) I have published reduced tracings (not prints) of the full set of palms and soles of a pair of duplicate twins as well as the hands of a second pair, and have shown the great similarity of those parts, ‘.‘ which are naturally greater than

2“ finger-Prints,” 1892, p. 187.

could ever exist in any other two people” (p. 435). Although these tracings and the brief statements accompanying them gave a general idea of the remarkable correspondences in such cases, they formed scarcely more than an announcement of an interesting line of investigation, and it is to supplement this that the facts presented in the present paper are given. In this the first consideration will naturally be bestowed upon the epidermic markings, although in order to make the investigation as complete as possible, I have thought it advisable to add anthropometric data and other matters of interest.

The material at my disposal for use’ in the present investigation includes some data, at least, and in nearly all cases sets of prints, of 16 sets of twins and two sets of triplets, as shown in the following table:

The sets are designated by Roman numerals and the individuals of a set by the letters a: and y (and 2), both sets of designations corresponding to names and numbers as listed in my private collection. In the determinations of the physical appearance I have designated with an asterisk all cases that I have had the opportunity of observing personally. In the other cases I have depended upon the descriptions of others, usually the collectors of the prints. In the most of the “ unlike ” cases the difference is so marked as to leave no doubt as to the determination, notably in the case of No. VI-II, where the two individuals, although both of the same sex, are strikingly unlike in every way, while a third sister, two years younger than they, resembles one of them almost enough to pass for her duplicate. Nos. VII and X are the only ones that occasioned any hesitation and in this I was prejudiced by statements of the families, who, in both cases, consider that the twins are very much alike, but the differences seen by unprejudiced observers are suflicient to class No. X positively, and No. VII probably, in the fraternal class.

I may here take the opportunity of thanking the numerous persons who have aided me in this investigation; several of my present and former pupils, to whom I am indebted for Numbers I, II, III, IV, XVI, and XVIII; my assistant, Miss Inez Whipple, who obtained the data of No. VII and the photograph of No. XVIII; Miss L. I. Mattoon, who collected Nos. XIII and XIV; Miss C. F. Robinson, who collected the valuable set of triplets, No. XII; and Dr. R. H. Johnson, of the University of Wisconsin, who sent me No. V. I wish also to thank Prof. Edward Hitchcock, Dean of Amherst College and Director of the Gymnasium of that place, and Miss Senda Berenson, Director of the Gymnasium of Smith College, who have presented me with the anthropometric measurements made use of here. My thanks also would not


N o. of set. « Sex. (appm‘:i9:1’ate1y)_ Deggggngglggggfcal Data in my possession. I. Female. 22 Identical.* Palm and sole prints. Rolled finger prints. Anthropometric measurements.

II. Female. 22 Identical.* Palm and sole prints (right foot of X not taken).

Anthropometric measurements.

III. Female. 20 Identical. Palm and sole prints. Anthropometric measurements.

IV. Female. 20 Unlike. Palm and sole prints.

V. Male. Not ascertained Identical. Palm prints.


VI. Male. l7 Identical.* Anthropometric

measurements. VII. Female. 15 Considered alike. but Palm and sole prints. with a difference in Rolled finger prints. [ height of one inch; Rolled toe prints.

and otherwise not Bertilion.measnre identical; probably ments.


VIII. ' Female. 21 Very unlike.* Palm prints Rolled fin er rints. 8’ P

IX. Male. 15 Identical.* Palm prints.

Rolled finger prints.

X. Female. 10 Similar but not iden- Palm prints.

tical; difl‘er a little Rolled finger prints. in height and weight.* XI. Female. 20 Identical. Palm prints (very poor). XII. , Two males. 4 "l‘wo males identical; Palm and sole prints. Triplets. \ One female, “some re. Rolled finger prints. female. semblance to the others, but not much.”—C. F. R. XIII. Female. 25 Identical. Palm prints. Rolled finger prints. XIV. 3 Male. 7 Identical. Palm prints. . Rolled finger prints. XV. Female. 20 Identical. Palm and sole prints. Rolled finger prints. XVI. Female. 16 Unlike. Palm prints. XVII. l One male. 12 Unlike. Palm prints. One female. XVIII. Female. (Adult.) All identical. Photograph and WritTriplets. _ ten description.

be complete without including the many twins and triplets themselves, who have in all cases submitted to the ordeal of being printed with exemplary patience, and who in some cases (Nos. XI and XV) have taken the prints themselves.


The method of formulating the arrangement of the friction ridges of the palm, as given in my previous articles on the subject, and espe— cially in the last one (Popular Sci. Monthly, Sept., 1903), makes it possible to easily describe and compare the large amount of material in the collection listed above. In preparing this description my object has been to formulate each palm without prejudice, losing sight, so far as possible, of the degree of similarity between the individuals of each set.

After going through them in this way, however, I have compared them with the previous decisions as to identity, and am willing to confess that I have occasionally added an explan-ation in those cases in which the formula: fail to suggest the close similarity that is actually present, marking such additions in all cases by placing them between brackets. That this is occasionally necessary may be acknowledged by imagining the not infrequent case of two main lines which pass in opposite directions very near one another, and where the variation of a single ridge may cause either of the two to be the upper line, or may cause them to meet and fuse. If we imagine, for example, lines 0 and D in such mutual relations as these, the results expressed in formula would give for the first two figures either 7.5 (with line D above), 9.7 (with line C above), or, finally, 8.6 (with a fusion of the two lines in question), a difference of formulation which is very misleading when we consider that these three conditions may be almost exact equivalents of one another.

The formulations here given, aided by an occasional explanation in brackets, will furnish a brief but concise and definite description of all the palms listed above; and a comparison of this with the classification based upon the facial resemblance and general appearance will easily show whether the correspondence between the two, as demanded by theory, be warranted or not. As explained in the article referred to, each formula consists of four numbers, which designate the termini, and hence the mutual relationships, of the four main lines (the “ primary ” lines of the 1902 articles) in the reverse order, beginning with line D. The significance of the various numbers is shown by the diagram (fig. 6) reprinted from the Popular Science Monthly with the kind permission of the editor, Prof. J. MCK. Cattell. The capital letter to the left of the four numbers designates the condition of the carpal region, whether a carpal trira.d1'/us (C) is present, a parting (P), or a seam along the inner edge of the hypothenar region (S). The second row of designations refers to the presence and the conditions of the various patterns, and will explain itself. I have added also, in all cases possible, the formulae for the fingerprint patterns after the Galton system. In all cases the upper row of designations or formula are those of the individual catalogued in my list as 2:, the lower row those of y. The designations of the finger-prints (but not those by permission.] naturally come were the reader to lay his hands, palm down, on the table before him.

fiG. 6. Diagram of a left palm, showing

of the main lines) are arranged in the designations employed in making the descriptive formula?

the order in which they Wou1d [From Pop. Sol. Mhnthly, September, 1903,

To make this plain, the descriptive formula of No. XVI are placed here as an example, and the significance of each designation explained.


Designations. Left. F Right. Main lines, etc. D C B A Carpns. D C B A Carpns. Their termination in :c. 10 S 6 5 C. 11 9 7 5 S. Special features. Line C wholly wanting. t A carpal triradius high up in

‘ seam.

Their termination in y. 7 5 5 1 S. 9 7 5 5.

Special features.

A carpal triradius high up w A carpal triradius high up in . in seam. \ seam.

Remarks on special tea. [The marked differences in the formulae diagnose these

tnres, resemblance, e in brackets.


at once as twins of the fraternal type, a decision that receives corroboration from the general aspect and facial expression. This set was sent in by a student with no statement concerning resemblance, but on inquiry subsequent to making out the above formulae, I found out that

the twins were very different from one another.] 432 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

No. XVI.—PALMS (continued).

finger patterns.

Number of finger. 5 4 3 2 1 l 2 3 4 5 finger patterns in re. u u u w u t u w W u u finger patterns in 3/. u u u u u f u u u u u Remarks on the finger-I [These also show a marked difference. The prints of y

patterns, in brackets. are all of the simple type of ulnar loops, with some variation in their cores, as usual. In on there are several

l whorls] i

In describing the other sets the designations will be arranged in the same relative positions, but the interpretations will be omitted.


The list of descriptive formulae is as follows:

No. I.

11. 7. 7. 2. S 11. 7. 7. 2. S 11. 7. 7. 2. S 11. 7. 7. 2. S

[Notice in these palms the complete bilateral symmetry between those of the same individual. The “ S ” is a new designation, and expresses the condition in which there is neither carpal triradius nor a definite parting of the lines at the wrist, but a seam or break in the direction of consecutive lines, which runs up across the palm, defining the hypothenar area and forming the only element upon which to base the carpal line. The left palms of this set are figured in fig. 7 and are made the subject of special study later on in the text]

[Note the reversal of the pattern of the right index, an ulnar fold in one and a radial in the other. Note a similar peculiarity in either the left or right index of many other duplicate twins, and see the comments below on this point]

No. II. 7. 5. 5. 5. P 8. 6. 5. 5. P H single broad loop. H round loop, rather low. 8. 6. 5. 5. P 8. 6. 5. 5. P H single broad loop. H round loop, rather low.

[These are remarkably similar, and correspond exactly in many little details not apparent in the formula, as in the general appearance of the hypothenar patterns, the loops enclosed by lines 0 and D, etc. The single lack of correspondence, that of the first two figures of the left hands, does not alter the general configuration and in fact I am not sure but what they should really read the same, since the critical spots are covered up by broad

red pencil lines, placed there before I realized the value of keeping the original prints unmarked.

Were the “ 7.5 ” of a: changed to 8.6 as may well be possible, we would have another case of the complete bilateral symmetry in the hands of each twin as in the case of No. I.]

[Here the patterns of the left index are reversed, although it is not noticeable at first, since the pattern in question belongs to the arch type, normally bilaterally symmetrical. By a careful examination, however, the arch is seen in each case to bear a small loop along one side, the loop being radial in one and ulnar in the other. This I have indicated by the little letters used as exponents]

No. III. 11. 9. 7. 5. S 12. 10. 8. 6. S Small 9. 9 in form of a double curve. 11. 0 ‘ 5. S 12. 10. 8. 6. S Small 9. 9 in form of a double curve.

[Reduced tracings of these palms were published in Amer. Jour. of Anat., Vol. I., pp. 436-437, and show their complete identity. While in one way no nearer alike than are the two preceding sets, there are more special features to be copied and the duplication is thus very complete, and more striking. The twins themselves, who are young ladies of twenty, had long noticed the curious patch of cross ridges on their left palms which represents a rudimentary “ thenar,” or morphologically a first interdigital.]

[There is here no reversal of the pattern in either set of indices.]

No. IV. J.’(11). 8. 7. 3. S(=Chish). 11. 8. 5. 5. S No H. No H. 11. 9. 7. 3. P 11. 9. 7. 5. S No H. H small loop, low.

The palms represented by these formulae are very unlike in general appearance. The high position of C in :::-left gives to that hand an especial char - acter as that condition always does; and shows a marked contrast to the

condition of the corresponding palm of y. The twins of this set do not at all resemble one another and are undoubtedly fraternal.]

H small loop, very low. No H. 434 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

[These are practically alike, with two exceptions in the left hands, which are of slight morphological value. In 11 there is a third lower triradius (.L' ). through which the last two lines (C and D) run. In order to indicate this, quite a change in the formula is necessary, but it will be seen that the final courses of the lines in question, as indicated by the numbers in parentheses, are the same as in the case of 9:, 13. e., 8 and 6. The small loop in 1/, classed as an H pattern, is very rudimentary. In allother respects the palms

are exact duplicates]

[Again the same inexplicable reversal of the pattern of one of the index fingers, this time the left, an ulnar loop in one case and a radial 111 the other. Compare I and II.]

No. Vi.

[Of this set I have the statistics alone. I have met these twins personally and the resemblance is wonderfully exact.]

No. VII.

11. 8. 7. 2. S 11. 7. 7. 2. S Line C ends in loop. H almost rudimentary. I-I complete with three triradii. A wide open loop.

9. 8. 11. 3. C 9. 7. 5. 4/5. 0 Line 0 ends in loop. H a closed loop; lower inner triH a simple loop. radius present.

[This case has caused me considerable trouble, owing to a preconceived notion that the marks ought to be found identical. The family emphasized the facial resemblance of these twins and when I first saw them they certainly looked 'much alike. One was, however, an inch taller than the other, and the facial resemblance, after a short acquaintance, did not seem as great. Upon an unprejudlced comparison the prints of the palms are very different, and not at all as in the case of true duplicates. The finger patterns also do not at all correspond. The sole markings are similar, but not identical. The

case is plainly one of fraternal twins that resemble one another somewhat more than the average]

[No correspondence here.]


[These are the fraternal twins referred to above, which are extremely unlike, the one tall and slender, and the other somewhat shorter and quite

stout. The latter so closely resembles a sister two years younger that they cause some confusion to those who do not know them we1l.]

No. IX.

9. 7. 5. 3. c 10. 9. 6. 3. c 9. 7. 5. 3. c 10. 9. 6. 3. P(?)

[As may be supposed, these boys are in every way identical. The slight discrepancy in the right carpal formula, 9. triradius (C) in a: and a parting (P) in y is very likely an error, since in a print one cannot distinguish between a genuine parting and the lines which diverge to form a triradius that occurs below the limit of a print. In fact it is a question whether or not all genuine partings are to be interpreted as the beginnings of “extra-limital” triradii, or those which would be formed by the imaginary continuation of the ridges beyond the limits of the friction skin. Neither palm possesses any special features other than those indicated in the formulae]

[There is here no reversal in either set of indices, but the right hands show a difierence in the pattern of the middle finger, a condition not seen in any of the other cases of genuine duplicates.]

No. X. 8. 6. 5. 3. C 10. 9. 6. 3. C 1.3. H narrow loop. 7. 5. 5. 3. C 9- 7- 5- 4/4. P(?)

H closed loop.

[These twins caused me some little difliculty, although they show by the formulae great differences and determine the set as fraternal beyond a. doubt. The subjects are little girls of ten, whom I have seen but once, and at the time I took it for granted that they were duplicates, and, as they came to my laboratory hand in hand, dressed exactly alike and each with her hair in two small braids; they were certainly similar, but to my assistant they did not appeal in the same way, and she judged them fraternal before seeing the prints. There is a noticeable difference in height and quite a little in weight, greater than is usually found in true duplicates.]

wwww? ?wwww wwww? ?uuww

[The finger patterns of both are mainly of the whorl type, but even here 11 is at variance with her sister in two digits, which possess ulnar 1oops.]

No. XI. 11. 9. 7. 5. C 11. 9. 7. 5. C A curious loop on 4th interdigital A rudimentary .L', which forms a. area, perhaps accounted for as an lenticular figure, made by a parting inverted J.'. of the ridges. 11. 9. 7. 5. C 11. 9. 7. 5. C The curious loop, identical with A rudimentary .L'. forming an that of an-left. exact duplicate or the figure or


[These furnish another case of undoubted duplicates, and the prints would be especially fitted for illustration in this paper, were it not for the fact that they were taken by the twins themselves before receiving proper instruction and are barely suflicient for study, still less for printing. It is also unpractical to attempt to procure others in this case. Note the complete symmetry of the two sides in both, as in many of the cases of duplicates, although occasionally found in other individuals.]

uuuuu ?uuuu uuuu‘? ?uuuu

[The finger patterns seem to be all ulnar loops, with no reversal of index patterns.]

No. XII (Triplets) .

J.“(11) 9. 7. 5. C 11. 9. 7. .L‘(5) .1.‘ encloses a pattern. Rudiments .L’ encloses a pattern. Rudiments of H and 9. of H and 9. 7[J.’(11)] 9. 7. 5. C 11. 9. 7. l‘(5) .L‘ encloses a pattern. Rudiments J.‘ encloses a pattern. Rudiments of H and 9. of H and 9. 10. 7. 6. 5. P 11. 9. 7. 5. .L' encloses a pattern. Rudiments Neither J.’ nor J.“ rudiment of H.

of H.

[These triplets are made the subject of a. detailed study elsewhere and the palm prints are represented in fac-simile in figs. 8 and 9. It will be seen from these that the difference in the first figure of the formula for the left hands of :1: and y is apparent rather than real, and that the palms of the two boys are in ever! respect as “ identical” as in the other true cases, while that of the girl (2) is quite unlike them. Again the bilateral symmetry of the lefts and rights will be noticed, a peculiarity not seen in the girl (Z).]

(as) u u u at ? ? u u u u (y) u u u at ? ? u u u u (z) u u u r ‘.7 ? u u u u

[There is no reversal of index patterns in the two boys; the left index is in each case a tented arch with a, loop on the radial side, the right indices are simple ulnar 1oops.]


7. 5. 5. 3. P 9. 7. 5. 3. P

Large 9, trace of Id‘. Convergence of ridges at hypothenar margin.

9. 9. 5. 3. C 10. 9. 6. 3. C

Large 9, trace of Id‘. Convergence of ridges at hypo thenar margin.

[According to personal appearance these should be duplicates. I have never seen them, but the one who took the prints wrote: “ The Misses are so similar in coloring, figure and features that even their best friends confuse them.” It must he confessed however, that the difierences in the formulae cannot be reconciled, and that the palms are, and remain, in respect to the main lines, very different. They both possess, however, certain peculiar markings in common, as the thenar patterns in the left hands, or the hypothenar convergence in the rights, facts which would help matters out were there any hope of reconciling the lines. Lmust leave this as a totally aberrant case, and treat it as such in the summary given below. In the other two cases that have caused trouble, Nos. VII and X, the resemblance is not so striking and there are marked difierences in height and weight. It will be noted that in these there is a. complete lack of that bilateral symmetry in the hands of one individual which is usual, though not invariably the case in undoubted duplicates. Were the theory established beyond doubt, I should unhesitatingly diagnose this as a case of fraternals in whom there happens to be a striking resemblance, but as one cannot be dogmatic, I must leave it as recorded, without explanation.)

11111111W W1.1111111 11111111W W1l1l1111

[The finger prints correspond exactly in the two individuals, even more than is usual in those twins that are unquestionably duplicates, yet it will be noted that they are in the main ulnar loops, the commonest type of pattern.]

No. XIV. 7. 5. 5. 3.C 7. 5. 5. 5.C

Indication of 1.’ shown by a broad A broad loop between T3 and T‘. loop between T“ and T‘. H a nar- J.’. row loop.

7. 5. 5. 2. C 8. 6. 5. 5. P (?)

1} well developed. H a narrow A broad loop between T‘ and T‘

loop, with a core of oblique ridges. showing rudiment of 1’.

[These correspond exactly in all but two minor particulars, and show, also, that bilateral symmetry so usual in the case of duplicates. The two differences are slight, and in each case the decision rests upon a single ridge. In the left hand of 2: line A almost runs into the carpal triradius, as it does in the case of y, a single ridge in the hollow of the hand deflecting it slightly outward; and in the same way the “ 8.6 ” of the right hand of y is so near 7.5 that another might interpret it so. These twins I have never seen, but they are reported as being identical.]

1111111111 113111111 111111811 1111111111

[The finger patterns are all ulnar loops except the right index of x and the left index of y, which are tented arches. These phenomena may possibly be of the same order as that of the reversal of patterns in the same finger, since, in passing over from an ulnar to a radial loop, a. tented arch is an intermediate stage. Here, at any rate, there is a reversal of hands if not of indices, since the left hand of y corresponds to the right of ac, and vice versa..] 438 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

No. XV. 11. 7. 7. 5. S 10. 7. 6. 5. S A long seam along the hypoth- Seam, division of ridges, etc., as enar area and a division of the in so-left. ridges (:0?) very high up. 11. 7. 7. 5. S 10. 7. 6. 5. S Seam, division of ridges, etc., as Seam, division of ridges, etc., as in :1;-left. in :::—left.

[This is a very satisfactory instance of true duplicates, since there is not only a complete correspondence between .'c and y, hand for hand, but the bilateral correspondence, also, is far greater than the formulae would indicate. The 10 and 6 of the right hands indicate, of course, that lines D and B meet and fuse, but in the left hands this nearly happens, as in passing they leave between them at the nearest place but two ridges in m and four in y. In other details they correspond. I have not seen these twins, but their brother states that the resemblance is exact.]

1111111‘11 1111111111 111111W11 1.11‘111111

[This finger pattern formula shows the typical nature of this case in another particular, namely, the reversal of the pattern on the right index, an ulnar loop on one and a radial on the other. What seems to be a lack of correspondence in the left indices disappears when we study the actual prints, since the radial loop of a: encloses a large oval at its core, which is merely enlarged a little in y to form the “ whorl.”]

No. XVI. [Used as an example of formulation at the head of this list, q. 12.]

No. XVII. 9. 8. 5. 5. C 11. 9. 7. 5. C 9. 7. 5. 5. C 9. 7. 5. 5. C

[As these are of different sex they are known a priori to belong to the fraternal class. The formula; are seen not to correspond. It may be noted that y is bilaterally symmetrical in the matter of palm patterns, a condition likely to occur, though not very often, in individuals not duplicate twins.]

1111111111 111111W11 1111111111 1111111111

[No correspondence here.]


An inspection of the above will show that, relying upon the formulae alone, nine out of sixteen sets, viz., I, II, III, V, IX, XI, XII (boys alone), XIV, and XV, are true duplicates, either absolutely identical or with one or two slight differences due to the disposal of one or two ridges at some critical point; and that, furthermore, these nine sets are also “identical” in personal appearance. Of the remaining eight, all of which differ as much in the palm and finger formulae as do brothers and sisters of distinct birth, five of them, viz., Nos. IV, VIII, XVI, XVII, and the girl of No. XII as compared with the boys, are quite unlike in personal appearance; two of them, Nos. VII and X, are very similar but not identical, leaving No. XIII alone to present the irreconcilable data of identical personal appearance with very different formulae. This set certainly damages the case to a slight extent, but it is but one out of seventeen, or between 5 and 6 per cent, the remaining sixteen being remarkabIy consistent in their relations to the main theory of the paper. This theory would demand the disposal of No. XIII as a case of fraternal twins in which the two members happen to resemble one another closely, and as such cases may occur in separate births; it is in no way remarkable that in those born at the same time and subjected as far as possible to the same environment after birth a chance resemblance might occur as great as in this instance. The placental condition at birth, employed at the beginning of this paper as an important criterion, would very likely settle the question, but this it is impossible to obtain. As a matter of coincidence it may also be possible to find a case of unlike fraternal twins with very similar palmar formulae, thus emphasizing the necessity of the identity of both formulae and good physical characteristics as necessary concomitants in diagnosing a case of genuine identity. , In tabular form the sets studied above may be classified as follows: True duplicates, with correspondence of physical characters and palmar formulm, Nos. I, II, III, V, IX, XI, XII (the two boys), XIV, XV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: 9 sets Fraternal twins, decidedly unlike both in personal appearance and in palmar formulae, Nos. IV, VIII, XII (the girl in comparison with the two boys), XVI, XVII (this last of

different sex) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 5 sets Fraternal twins, that look much alike but with different palmar formulae, Nos. VII and X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 2 sets

Twins, probably fraternal, with different palmar formula, but strikingly similar in physical characteristics, No. XIII. .= 1 set Of these the fraternal twins, being in no sense different from children of separate birth, will interest us no further in the present discussion, but

the nine sets of duplicates deserve a careful consideration and may now be taken up in detail. 440 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters


In the above cases the identity of palmar markings is much more complete than is brought out by the formulae, since these last have an artificial element in their formation and the course of a line often depends upon the detail of one particular ridge, one of Galton’s “minutiae,” and since the correspondence, even in duplicate twins, is not carried as far as these, a fact that will be brought out later together with the probable reasons for it, it may easily happen that such a slight difference, when occurring at a critical point in the course of a main line, may change the symbol of one or perhaps of two positions. Another source of error is found in aflixing a designation to the carpal region, since a print often leaves off at the wrist before the limit of the friction skin is reached, and thus in the case of a very low carpal triradius, this latter may not even appear, causing the investigator to class as a parting what should be a triradius. In the entire nine sets of true duplicates there is not a single difference that cannot be traced to one of the above sources and thus be shown to be of no real value.

Features of especial interest in the palmar and finger configuration of duplicates are (1) the tendency to a symmetry between the two sides, which appears to be far greater than among other individuals, ‘and (2) the mysterious reversal of index patterns of one hand or the other. Added to this last there seems also some tendency to lack of correspondence in the thumb patterns, and in a single instance (the rights of No. IX) there is a difference in the patterns of the middle fingers.

A detailed comparison of the nine sets of duplicates considered here yields the following results:

Of these sets five are female, and four (including the two boys from a. set of triplets) male. The physical resemblance seems in all cases to be complete, although I can corroborate this from personal inspection in but three of the cases. The total difierence in the palmar formulae, excepting two cases in which the carpal areas are in question, consist of but five instances, all of the left hand, and all of the slight nature explained above. Since each palmar formula plus the character of the carpus consists of 10 symbols, there are in all 90 sets of such symbols in the above list, and if we deduct from these the nine which do not correspond (two of the differences involve two symbols each) we find an exact correspondence of 81 out of the 90 sets or 90 per cent of the whole. To these formula; may be added, -as they occur, 14 instances of other features, such as patterns and lower triradii, 12 of which show a complete and one a partial correspondence, while one alone, the small hypothenar loop in No. V 1, is unrepresented in its duplicate.

TABLE II. Degree of . '0 d f Extent of bilateral R , 1 f - d “°- .e;;':r:;1::Le. 3% xi’a‘1’=i’»i‘%"r‘«‘»r‘:’r‘n‘u‘n’f’a‘e’. araitzzaurt? "‘°x'>‘a‘%»«‘a’rn‘-“ °‘ 1. ldentical.* 9 Complete. Complete. Rights. Il. Identical.* 9 One difference Complete with the Lefts. in left. exception just noted. III. ldentics.l.+ 9 ' Complete. None. None. V. ldenticalq‘ Cr Two differences Complete with the Lefts. in left. exceptions just noted. IX. Identical.* CZ‘ Complete.j; None. None. I XI. Identicsl.f 9 Complete. Complete. None. XlI.§i Identical}, C? One difference Complete with the None.

in left. exception just

noted. XIV. Identical.-f 3‘ One difference Complete with the Indices show two 9.1in left; exception just ternat-ing patterns, I noted. 1 i. e., :c- lett=gright, and 1/— left

1- right.

XV. Ildentical. 9 Complete. None. Right.

  • Decision rests upon personal inspection.

+ Decision rests upon testimony of others, all reliable sources.

1 In addition a carpal diflerence not counted because of reasons above stated. 5 The two boys alone from the set of triplets.

A complete bilateral symmetry in the case of duplicate twins calls for a double correspondence, 1}. e., four hands with the same formula, or, in cases Where there is a point of difference, three hands alike and the fourth also corresponding save in the point noted; and yet this difficult requisite is fulfilled in six out of the nine sets, while in the other three there is no attempt at bilateral correspondence. This seems to show that a bilaterality in the case of true duplicates is to be looked for, although it is not a prerequisite.

The occasional reversal of an index pattern is, perhaps, the most singular phenomenon yet observed, but it occurs too often to be a. coincidence (4 out of 9, with a strange interrelationship in a fifth). The table shows that this reversal bears no necessary relationship to the bilaterality, since it occurs in No. XV, in which there is no bilateral symmetry, and, on the other hand, is entirely absent in XI and XII, in which a complete bilaterality exists. In its commonest form it consists of the re~ versal of a loop, which is ulnar in one individual and radial in the other, 442 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

but in No. II the reversed pattern is a tented arch to which a small loop is applied laterally, being ulnar and radial respectively in the two individuals. As for the side upon which it occurs, it is right in two cases and left in two. In seeking for an explanation, the theory of the transposition of viscera in twins is recalled to mind, and especially Bateson’s statement that the transposition need not necessarily be a complete one, but why the tranposition should affect one finger alone, or why that finger should always be the index, these are at present questions beyond solution.

With the evidence thus far at hand, the impression becomes strong that in typical duplicate twins, the following conditions of the frictionskin configuration ought to co-exist with the correspondence in other physical characters, and probably with that of a single placenta and chorion during development, namely: (1) Duplicate formulae for the main lines and for the carpus; and (2) Approximate correspondence in other features such as lower triradii, seams, and patterns; to these may be added as usual, though not necessary, (3) Bilateral symmetry between the hands of the two sides, and (4) A reversal of the patterns of one of the indices, either right or left.


For the purpose of enabling the reader to study actual conditions, I have reproduced in fig. 7, the prints of the left hands of No. I, the tracings of which have been already published (in Amer. Jour. Anat., Vol. I, p. 438). These are good typical duplicates, and although as subjects they may not be as good as those possessing more patterns and other details, they were the‘ only subjects from which I was able to procure prints satisfactory enough to be used for this purpose.

In these the four main lines are identical in their general course and in their effect in the formation of areas, but differ slightly in the relative proportions of the areas they demark. It as though identical forces had directed the development in the two individuals, but that the material had yielded a little unequally to the strain of growth, a given area being a little more expanded and consequently covered by a few more ridges in one than in the other. The result is a slight variation in the curvature of the main lines and in the number of ridges between them at identical spots in the two individuals. Line A, arising from the triradius at the base of the index finger, curves around the base of the

fiG. 7. Prints of the left palms of Twins No. 1. Natural size. The lines of interpretation are marked with india ink. (figure on opposite page.) .... .9: 444 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

thumb and eventually opens at the lower margin on the radial side, an unusual position. The amount of curvature of the line is somewhat less in y than in at, and the cause of this is evident in the difference of position of the 1st triradius from which it arises, which in y is more centrally placed (beneath the middle of the index finger), while in :1: its position is unusually near the inner margin. This difference in curvature is probably also the cause of the difference of relationship between this line and the deep, curved wrinkle, the “line of life,” which in :1: is almost coincident with it, while in y it diverges widely, especially at its upper end. Lines B and C, those which arise from the bases of the middle and ring fingers respectively, curve outwards and upwards in both a; and y and terminate eventually not far from one another in the interval between the ring and little fingers. Here again slight differences in curvature, and consequently in the shape of the areas which they define, may be noticed, but the similarities are far more striking than the differences. Line D, arising from the base of the little finger, curves around line B in both cases and opens in the interval between the index and middle fingers. The curvature of this line is in :2: slightly more abrupt and as a consequence it comes noticeably nearer to line B along that part of the course at which the two are approximately parallel. In neither of the palms are there especial figures such as patterns or lower triradii.

Farther examples of the correspondence of the main features in duplicate palmamay be seen by an inspection of the palm prints of the two boys of the set of triplets (:1: and y of figs. 8 and 9) since these are as genuine a case of duplicate twins as though a fraternal sister had not developed at the same time. These, although smaller and with finer ridges than in the case of adults, are much more convincing studies than are those just considered, since they possess numerous features other than those of the main lines, all of which are duplicated with great fidelity. While studying these, it will be of interest to compare them, point by point, with their fraternal sister, to see the lack of correspondence as Well as the similar features which are liable to be found in any children of the same parents, whether contemporary or not.

Here, in the boys, the main lines of both hands are, with one slight exception, as accurately duplicated as in the case of No. I, and the right

fiG. 8. Prints of the left hands of a set of triplets (No. XII), aged four years. Natural size. Lines of interpretation and other features marked with india ink. The two boys (2: and y) are duplicates; the girl 2 is related to the others fraternally.

fiG. 9. Prints of the right hands of No. XII. Natural size. [See explanation under fig. 8.] For figures, see opposite page.

446 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

and left ha.nds either of the same individual or one of :c and one of y, are also exact symmetrical equivalents. The exception just mentioned is hard to find and is so slight that I was for a long time in doubt whether or not to express it in the formula: as given in the list on page 436. As may be clearly seen by consulting the formula, it is found at the origin of line D in the left hand of y, where by a slight difference in the minutiae of the ridges, the line arising from the 4th digital triradius cannot be said strictly to become continuous with the 3d lower triradius (13) as in :c and in both right hands. (Compare 1:: and y in this particular.) This case is in itself an interesting contribution to the study of the ridges and their minutiae, since it shows, as maintained elsewhere, that the exact correspondence of duplicates does not extend to those latter parts save in a general way, and that a difference in main line formulae often depends upon some eccentricity of a single ridge, in itself sufficient to deflect the course of a line, although of no importance in regard to the general pattern. Six of the eight remaining exceptions to the correspondence of the 90 pairs of symbols embodied in the descriptive formula of the nine sets of duplicate twins considered above are of as slight a nature, and the other two differences are situated in the carpal region, and are of still less importance since they are in all probability the result of incompleteness in the prints.

In the ridges themselves, whether we consider their number or the minutiae met with along their course, we find but little similarity, although more in the former than in the latter. If, for example, in the two left palms of No. I (fig. 7) fine straight lines be drawn with a ruler, connecting adjacent digital triradii, and if the ridges crossed by those lines be accurately counted and compared, the results are as follows:

TABLE III. Area Countem No. oiiléidges. No. oigliilidges. 2nd interdigital area (between index and medias) . . . . . . . . . 49 45 3rd interdigital area (between medins and anuularis). . . . . 22 22 4th iuterdigital area (between annularis and minimus) . . . 49 51

These differences are certainly not great, especially when we note that there is often a chance for individual difference of opinion, amounting to one or possibly two ridges each way. Thus the pencilled line often crosses an interrupted line at its very end and an almost infinitesimal difference in its position would determine whether or not that line should enter the enumeration. Greater differences than this often appear if we count the ridges composing areas limited by the main lines, but in these cases we must remember the semi—artificia1 character of the lines themselves, and the fact that in tracing them there is frequently a point, caused by the forking of a line, the interpolation of a new one or some similar structure, where_ the decision is an arbitrary one, and that such a variation, although minute at first, may often make considerable difierence as the line is continued. For example, we may take in the same prints the two lines B -and C at their termination between the 4th and 5th digits. In a: they are apparently five ridges apart at the margin and but three (or four) in y, differences which may easily have been made in two copies of a single hand by swerving the course of the lines as much as permitted by the ridges. There is, however, too much difference in the same two hands at certain other places, as, for example, the distance between lines B and D at the lower curve, to account for it in any such way. In :1: this distance is expressed by an average of seven ridges, while at no place in y are there less than fifteen. This occasional wide discrepancy in the number of ridges suggests that we are on the border between characteristics which are duplicated and those which are not. While the correspondence between the main lines and areas, the patterns and other figures, and even the number of ridges in most cases is nothing short of remarkable, the law seems to fail at about the latter point, and if we turn to the “ minutiae” of the ridges, that is, the forkings, interruptions, interpolations and isolations, we find that the limit of resemblance has been passed and that whatever law of heredity or of construction has caused a similarity of form or arrangement in the larger parts, it is here no longer binding. Perhaps in this way we may be led to approximate the answer to the question asked by Galtonz “What is the minutest biological unit transmissible by heredity?” since in individuals that arise from one egg and thus possess, presumably, the same inheritance, the main lines, areas, patterns and other large features are duplicated exactly, or as nearly as the ridges will allow them to be,-while the ridges themselves with their minutiae are not. To illustrate this, apply a lens to the corresponding areas of any two duplicate prints, as, for example, the areas in the left palms of N o. I designated by a small x, and follow the details of the ridges. If we compare either the short detached pieces known as “islands,” the forkings or the interruptions, we shall see that in these details the two areas are as individual and distinct as are any two corresponding areas in hands entirely unrelated. They are like two duplicate pieces of masonry built with irregular blocks of stone taken haphazard, and show clearly that while in each egg (i. e., each 4-18 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

divided half) there has been a force or mechanism su/ficiently similar to that contained in the other to cause the main lines, the areas and the patterns to develop as practical duplicates, it has attempted no control in the formation of the separate ridges, and that these latter, therefore, have developed in obedience to forces which have appeared later in the development, and which did not exist in the first germ-nucleus.

Some explanation of these later forces and their method of action has been given through the recent investigations of Miss Whipple, in the work referred to in the bibliography and now in press. The author has studied the genesis of ridges, both phylogenetically and ontogenetically, in the various orders of mamm-als, and shows that they are formed from either (1) the coalescence of separate epidermic units, each with a sweat gland (and, typically, a sebaceous gl-and and a hair), which arrange themselves in rows and form single ridges, or, in other cases, from (2) epidermic rings, formed by a coalescence of the primary units in circles, which, by becoming elliptical and arranging themselves in rows corresponding to their longitudinal axes, form simultaneously two rows of ridges.‘ This process may be easily seen, in all stages of transition, in many mammals, especially Marsupials, Lemurs and the lower Primates, along the borders of ridged areas which are surrounded by either the simple units or by the rings, and in all of these lower forms, in which the friction ridges and the pads are still of functional importance, the separate units seemingly arrange themselves in obedience to purely mechanical laws, as though determined through use-inheritance. In fact, I do not know any instance which convinces me so completely of preformation in the egg as the comparison of duplicate twins, nor, on the other hand, one that forms so good an argument in favor of the doctrine of use-inheritance as these investigations of Miss Whipple. The facts and principles thus far brought out in the general study of the surface structures of the mammalian chiridium point more -and more to the great importance of these parts as a basis for the study of fundamental biological problems.

3 This development of separate epidermic units into friction ridges, as thus far ascertained, is a phylogenetic development, as traced by the comparison of adult forms. How much of this may be recapitulated in individual ontogeny has not as yet been ascertained, but it seems probable that more is left the individual to accomplish in such lower mammals as Marsupials and Lemurs than in the higher primates. finger patterns which would probably have become the adult form are demonstrable in a simian embryo of 70-90 days.

Details or Finger Patterns in Duplicate Twins

It is with much hesitation that I venture upon a field -so minutely worked out in every detail by Mr. Galton, the more so as he has already included among his labors a comparison of the patterns of three fingers in the ease of seventeen sets of twins,‘ by a coincidence the same number presented here; since, however, he has in this made no distinction between duplicate and fraternal sets, it may not be superfluous to make a short comparison of the formulae above given, and to present fa.c—simile prints of an actual case of true duplicates.

My material is in a Way incomplete, since I have rolled impressions of but nine of the sets studied (Nos. I, III, VII, VIII, IX, X, XIII, XIV and XV), and for the other cases have to rely upon the dabbed impressions obtained, -accidentally, as it were, while taking the general palmar surface. As the fingers are somewhat flattened during this process, the patterns are in most cases sufliciently complete for comparison except in the case of the thumbs of which the edges only appear, save in those few cases in which the operators have had the forethought to make a separate impression of each thumb. Where the pattern of a thumb or other finger is in doubt I have placed a question-mark in the formula. As shown by a cursory examination of the above formula, the results in the case of finger patterns are not very definite, and not only is there frequently a lack of correspondence among the duplicates, but there -are also cases of undoubted fraternal twins in which the similarity is remarkable. Thus, of the nine duplicate .sets, not counting a reversal of indices as a difference, Nos. I I, III, V, XI, and XII (boys) correspond completely, while Nos. I, IX, XIV and XV show differences (other than reversals), in I the right thumb, in IX the right middle finger, in XIV both sets of indices, and in XV the left index. In all the above the numbers italicized show a reversal of an index pattern. Turning now to the seven fraternal sets, No. VII shows four differences, IV and XVI three each, VII, X and XVII, two each, and in XIII alone the two formulae correspond—the doubtful case. As to the digits in which the differences are located, in one instance it is the thumb, in ten the index, in three the middle finger, and in two the ring finger.

The above results may be more clearly expressed in the form of a table.

Placed in this tabular form the records show at once the much greater correspondence in the duplicate than in the fraternal set, since out of nine sets of the former there are but six differences (aside from reversals), or 6% per cent, while in the seven sets of the latter there are

‘ finger-Prints, 1892, pp. 185-187, with Table XXVII. 450 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

fifteen, or over 21 per cent of the whole, and in this latter computation there is not included one in set VIII which happens to be a reversal, and is probably a coincidence, since there seems to be in fraternals no especial tendency towards this phenomenon. Again, taking the individual sets and placing over against each the number of dilferences they exhibit, we have the column at the right hand of the table, which shows very clearly the comparison between the two sorts of twins.


- i I , 'I‘dtIal" No. of Set. sex. 5 4 3 2 I 1 - 1 2 3 4 5 5 Differ ! ; enees. a———-:- V I Q ‘ I Q I o o o X ; 0 I X - N 0 o o 2 .5 II 9 I o o 0 - I o 5- 0 g 0 o 0 3 o 0 43 III Q : 0 0 o 0 o o o 0 0 o 0 5], V g‘ 0 0 0 o . o -= o o o 0 o 0 3'. IX 6‘ u 0 o o I o o o I 0 X o o 1 S XI 9 o 0 o ! o ' 0 l 0 o 0 0 XII (boys) 5‘ o o o o i I‘ o 0 o ; o 0 XIV C?‘ l o o o X ; o 0 X o o o 2 XV _Q o o o l X 1 0 o - o o o 1 IV 9 o‘ o X X I o o X o o o 3 .3 VII 9 o o 0 X -, o ,. X X o X o 4 E VIII 9 o o o ! - .' o i o X o 0 o 1 3 X 9 o o o o l. I-, X X o o 2 13 XIII Q o o o I 0 i o 'i 0 : o 0 o o 0 E‘, XVI Q 0 0 o I X E 0 o f X X 0 l 0 3 XVII (fig? o o o X o o 0 o l X . o 2

A correspondence of pattern is indicated by (0), a reversal by (-) and a disparity by (X). Where the material is insuflicient to allow a trustworthy comparison, the space is left blank.

N 0. XIII is a doubtful case. May be duplicate. ( See above.)

Again, it must be borne in mind that, exactly as in the case of the palmar features, a difference which would be expressed in a formula is not necessarily of much morphological importance, since here, as Galton shows in spite of his desire to the contrary, patterns do merge into one another by various indefinite steps, and one continually meets with a pattern so near another type that its classification, even by two experts, might well vary.

This can be shown by the finger patterns of No. I, reproduced in Plate B and particularly fitted to illustrate this point, since the twins from which they are printed are unmistakable duplicates, and since the finger patterns show, besides a typical reversal of index patterns, two differences of a degree sufficient to alfect the formulae.

As nearly as I can interpret and apply the Galton system, the formulation of these patterns, in the same arrangement as on the plate, would be as follows, making use of descriptive suffixes only in the doubtful cases of transition patterns:

Table V

Left. Right.

8 Q R




11 1‘ 11 W 11

Aside from the reversal in the right indices, differences occur in the left indices and the right thumbs. The first of these show in the formula as W and rw respectively, that is, a whorl and a radial loop forming a transition form towards the whorl type. Galton’s distinction between a whorl and a loop rests upon the number of deltas (triradii) present, being two in a whorl and one in a loop. When stated, this distinction seems obvious enough, but since there are all stages in the gradual extinction of a delta (triradius) [see paper by Miss Whipple] it is often impossible to know whether one that is disappearing should be counted or not. Thus, in the case in point, the left index of ac certainly possesses two good deltas and is therefore a whorl, but are we to consider that in the corresponding pattern of y one of the deltas (the right in the print) has disappeared or not? It is well indicated by the convergence of the ridges proceeding from the core, and is certainly on the way to extinction, but there is at least room for a difference of opinion concerning its exact status in its present condition. If it is considered as still there, the pattern is a whorl and the two correspond; if absent, the pattern is a loop, and the two differ. Galton himself, usually so clear, is rather unsatisfactory on this point, and refers the reader to four enlarged prints, two of which he calls loops and two whorls, although their differences are extremely slight, and seem almost arbitrary.°

The pattern of the left ring finger of 9: presents the same problem and I have doubtfully referred it to an ulnar loop after considerable hesitation. At all events, it is sufficiently similar to the corresponding pattern of y to be considered a duplicate, and it would be manifestly misleading

to place it in the formula as a W, and thus introduce what would count

as a difference.

‘ finger-print Directories, 1895, p. 109, and Plate 8, bottom line. Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

The other difference, that of the right thumbs, presents a sOI11eW1121t greater ditficulty, but morphologically the patterns are very similar and in order to convert the pattern in 2: into that in y all that is needed is to complete the breaking down of the weaker triradius (the right in the print), which has already begun, leaving all other ridges exactly as at present.

The reversal of index patterns as seen in the right hands is a good typical example of that frequently recurring phenomenon, and seems to occur with too great frequency (four cases out of nine) to be dispose] of simply as a lack of correspondence like the rest. The other cases, as has been shown, are usually or always those of transition patterns not really unlike morphologically, but in this case one pattern is the exact symmetrical equivalent of the other, and hardly capable of becoming identical by anything less than a complete rearrangement of the entire pattern. These reversed patterns may be better studied in the enlarged figures of their cores, represented in (a) of fig. 10.

As in the case of the palms there is little or no attempt at correspondence in the minutiae, as may well be seen by applying a reading glass to the cores of the patterns in Plate B, or by a study of the

X y, enlarged cores ot fig. 10, which show those

of the indices, middle and ring fingers of the

two right hands. The various ulnar loops, for example, show several types of Galton’s “ Secondary Classification ” without any correspondence betwccn the two individuals; thus the single rod expressed by the descriptive suffix “ i,” appears in x-left, middle finger, in y-left, thumb and middle fingers, and in cc-right, middle and little fingers. The eyed rod, suffix “ f,” appears in 91:, right index, and in conjunction with a single rod in ac, left thumb. The staple, suffix “c,” Em appears .'n cc-left, little finger, in y-left, little

and ring fingers, in x-left, middle and little

fiG. 10_ Cores of finger pat_ fingers, and in y-right, little finger. In all

g>irtr11lsPf1x;<:tx;1Bs_et No- 1. Compare this there is some little correspondence, as in

(E) I1i?ies;71;;m11Il1§i°eS- Note We fig. 10 b, but that it is probably a coinci If§jgg§;1jj‘<2‘d%i$1gg§:PS- dence appears from the lack of correspondence in the other minutiae, as is easily seen

by a more complete scrutiny of the figure just referred to.

In close connection with the present subject come investigations of the finger patterns of twinned fingers in those cases of hyperdactylism in which it is probable that the extra digit may be referred to a doubling of one of the normal ones, as in a double thumb. I have received prints of two individuals exhibiting this phenomenon, in both cases on the right hand alone, and have special thumb prints of one of these. I had naturally expected, a. prion", that the patterns of the two right thumbs would prove to be duplicates of one another, but such is by no means the case. In this individu-al the “outer” (external or radial) thumb shows a typical radial loop, a rare pattern for a thumb, while the “ inner ” (internal) thumb is marked by a simple arch. The left thumb presents an ulnar loop. That the -supernumerary digit is rightly classed as a thumb is shown by its origin, evidently from a common 1st metacarpal, and the two thumbs are united as far as the middle of the proximal phal-angeal joint, and lie so near one another that the rolled prints were taken with considerable diificulty. The pattern of the right index finger adjacent to the inner thumb is an ulnar loop. Of the other individual with double thumbs I possess only the general print of the vol-ar surface of the hand, but in this the inner thumb is turned in such a way as to suggest that its pattern, as in the other case, is a simple arch. This conclusion is not absolutely reliable on account of the incompleteness of the print. In addition to the above, five cases of hyperdactylism in which the supernumerary digit is a post-minimus, have come under my -observation, but as in all of these the extra finger had been removed the data obtained were those of the palm alone.

It would be premature to offer any conclusion based upon a single observation, but it may be allowable to point out that the occurrence of patterns of distinct types upon the two terminal phalanges of a “ doublethumb” contrary to all expectation, is naturally in opposition to all theories that suggest -a splitting of the anlage, -a double set of determinants or any cause involving a duplication of parts, as an explanation of such a phenomenon. If, with Zander, we believe that an originally single anlage is split by the tension of amniotic threads, or if, with Tornier, we consider one of the thumbs the result of super—regeneration from the other, or “ Stamm-individuum,” we must in some way account for the total lack of resemblance between the two resulting parts. This would seem a fruitful field for investigation, and the comparison of the finger patterns of supernumerary digits may lead to interesting results.

Summing up the results obtained from a comparison of the fingerpatterns of the two types of twins, they corroborate in general the conclusions reached from a similar comparison of the palms, although it seems as though the correspondences are not of as exact a nature as is 454 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

the palmar configuration, a fact which may be due to the greater importance of the individual ridges in the formation of the patterns, and to the close morphological interrelation between the four primary types. It may be definitely stated, however, in the case of duplicate twins (1) that the finger patterns correspond far more completely than in those of the fraternal type, (2) that the differences are more apt to appear inethe thumbs and indiccs, and (3) that these latter patterns show a strong tendency in one hand or the other towards a reversal, i. e., the formation in the two individuals of patterns which are the symmetrical equivalents of one another. To these conclusions may be added (4) that twinned digits in a single individual, at least in the case of double thumbs, do not necessarily possess duplicate patterns.


As material for this study I have the sole prints of seven sets, five be ing duplicates (I, II, III, XII, XV) and two fr-aternal (IV, VII);

As far as it is safe to draw conclusions from so small a number they exhibit the same principles as those shown by the palms and are in some ways rather better for study since they often possess a more complex configuration. In general, it may be said that the so-les of duplicates exhibit the same striking correspondence in main lines and in patterns as do the palms, as well as the same tendency to a bilateral symmetry when the two sides are compared; also that in fraternal twins there is either a striking contrast or else the similarity, at best, is no greater than among other members of ’the same family. In detail the observations of the different sets are as follows:


I. In these the four soles are all exact duplicates and belong to what may be called the simple type, one in which the four main lines and all intervening ridges cross the inner margin and form no loops or patterns during their course. The only pattern present is the 1st interdigital or hallucal (the “ thenar” of previous articles) which is reduced to a simple loop opening upward between the‘ 1st and 2nd toes. There is no definite lower triradius on any of the feet, but there are rudiments of one in all, situated between lines B and C.

II. In this set the right footprint of :1: is wanting owing to a slight injury received just previous to the printing and rendering it unwise to attempt a print. The comparison is thus confined to the two Iefts, but as the remaining right, that of y, is the symmetrical equivalent of the others, there is little room to doubt that the missing foot would also be a duplicate of the other three. The configuration of these soles is rather complicated and as it shows with especial clearness the principle expressed in the case of the hands, that of the formative force determining the areas but allowing their relative extent to be determined by the stress of growth at the different points, the two left soles have been reproduced here, covered by their lines of interpretation (fig. 11). In these it will be noted that of the main lines, D fuses with the lower triradius; C curves inwards and opens between digits III and IV (or their corresponding triradii); B curves outward, embracing C and opening between the triradii of digits IV and V; while A differs slightly in the two individuals, fusing with the lower triradius in as and missing it by three ridges in y. This is the only difference in the main pattern in the two soles and may easily be attributed to a slight difference in the ridges, since their courses lie at one point so near one another. The hallucal line at the base


fiG. 11. Prints of the left soles of twins No. II. Natural size. The lines of interpretation are marked with india ink.

of the hallux forms a spiral core for the hallucal, or 1st interdigital pattern, the general configuration of which is marked by the dotted line. Both in this case and in that of the other pattern, the 3rd interdigital, the ridges picked out by the dotted lines are taken arbitrarily, as the only purpose is to show the general trend of the ridges in the region thus marked, and thus no special significance should be attached to their total number in either case. The five dotted lines defining the hallucal pattern of as, for example, as compared with the three (or four) in 1/ mean nothing more than, perhaps, a slightly greater width to be defined in the latter case, and the two that happen to be used in each case to define the loop in the 3rd interdigital area are intended to point out the identity in shape in the two patterns, with no reference to the number of ridges involved.

III. Tracings of this entire set have been already published in the American Journal of Anatomy, Vol. I, p. 437, and exhibit again the same principles as 456 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

do the previous ones, duplicity of the general patterns in the two individuals, and a bilateral symmetry of the two sides. As in No. II, the configuration will be found to be almost but not entirely identical, the only difference in the left feet being due to a slight shifting of a lower triradius which deflects line A in the one case to the outer and in the other to the inner margin. in the right foot a digital line, the 4th, becomes recurved and lost in a pattern in one individual and not in the other. The remainder of the sole is the same in both.

XII (the boys of the triplet set). The feet are typical duplicates with symmetry between the right and left. The commonest characteristics of all four are the following: (a) hallucal patterns of the simple loop type, opening upward between the hallux and the second toe; (b) broad loops circumscribing the 3rd interdigital area; (c) a large lower triradius between the hallucal and 2nd interdigital patterns, with radiants running to the inner and outer margin, and upward. The course of these latter varies a little, making slight differences like those shown in fig. 11; (d) a curve around the upper border of the 2nd interdigital area; this curve is not quite complete in one case. Aside from the variation mentioned in connection with the lower triradius, the only other one possible is in connection with the appearance of a hypothenar loop in one case (Y-left). The prints, however, do not prove that this is not present in the other cases as well, since they are not rolled, and this pattern is usually beyond the limit of an unrolled print.

A comparison of the girl with her brothers is interesting, and shows the same decided lack of correspondence as in the palms (figs. 8 and 9). The soles are of the smooth, featureless type, and consist of oblique, approximately parallel ridges without loops, curves or lower triradii. A rudiment of one of the latter may be made out in the right foot. In the left foot there is a. pronounced calcar loop on the inner edge of the heel.

XV. The sole patterns are typical duplicates with no essential variations in the curve of the main lines nor in the types of the hallucal patterns. In the left feet there is a large and conspicuous lower triradius, whose radiants extend outwards, upwards and inwards, across the entire ball. In both, the upper or ascending radiant pushes up between the hallucal pattern and the outer opens at the margin just below the origin of line D. Lines B and C curve around a large 3rd interdigital loop, passing each other in the same relation in each case. Lines A and D meet and fuse. The hallucal patterns are spirals, formed by the hallucal line and directed toward the inner margin. The configuration of the right feet is almost a. duplicate of the above, and the two are exactly in accord with one another. In these line D fuses, not with line A, but with the outer radiant of the lower triradius, and line A passes within the loop thus formed. The 3rd digital line in both becomes recurved, forming a loop about the upper end of the 2nd digital area. In one point alone the two right soles show a difference, and that is in the presence in :1: of an extra upper triradius between digits II and III, but as it appears at the very margin of the print, and is barely included at that, it is more than probable that a similar triradius is borne by y a little higher up and just beyond the limit of the print. The hallucal patterns are spirals formed by the hallucal lines and are the symmetrical equivalents of those in the left feet.


VII. These prints are fairly similar, as, it may be remembered, their personal appearance is also, all of which may be correlated as a common inheritance in which they both have shared, inheriting similar qualities, or a similar combination, affecting all parts of the body. In this connection it would be interesting to note how great may be the tendency towards similarity in palms and soles between two children of different births who closely resemble one another in appearance.

In detail, the left feet are alike in the hallucal patterns, which form in each case a simple loop; and in the general course of the main lines. There is, however, in 11 an important 2nd lower triradius, the two upper radiants of

which form a broad looped pattern on the 3rd interdigital area, all of which ‘

is absent in w, or suggested merely by a convergence of ridges in the position of the missing triradius. In .1: the 2nd digital line curves downward, enclosing the 2nd interdigital area, while in Y this line is normal and the 3rd digital line curves upward.

In the right feet the hallucal patterns are as in the left, but the relations of the first three main lines become very different through the presence of a 1st lower triradius in y, wholly absent in 11:. Both have a looped pattern upon the 3rd interdigital area, but the relation to it of the main lines is quite different in the two.

As these details are hard to follow without diagrams, they may be summarized in the statement that the soles are quite similar to one another in general appearance, but possess much greater difference than has yet been observed in either palms or soles of genuine duplicate twins.

IV. These prints are totally different in every respect; in the general shape the feet of a; are long and narrow, while those of y are shorter by 1.4 cm. and much broader. I have never seen the individuals from whom the prints were taken, but am informed that they bear little or no resemblance to each other.

The sole configuration is of much interest, being as different in the two individuals as was to be expected from the other data. This is seen most strikingly by a comparison of the hallucal patterns. In-:0 the patterns on the two feet correspond, presenting the rather uncommon type of a loop that opens upon the inner margin, enclosed by the incurved hallucal line; in y the two are very different from one another and from those of .72, that on the left foot being a spiral with two triradii and that on the right a simple loop that opens upward between the first two digits. The remainder of the foot in y is perfectly featureless, its ridges crossing the base of the foot obliquely, and with a slight convergence towards the inner margin; in each foot of 1/ there is a conspicuous rounded loop over the upper end of the 3rd interdigital arch in which the 2nd digital line participates, and in the right foot there is a hypothenar loop.

By this comparison it is seen that the complete lack of correspondence in the soles is in perfect accord with the other data, the palms, the finger patterns, and the personal appearance. 458 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters


The physical measurements are far less determinative than are the other characters employed since they are liable to fluctuations through numerous causes, both external and internal, and it could hardly be expected that the similarities here would be very striking.

There is often, however, much correspondence in the events of life since, while children at least, duplicate twins are usually closer companions than in the case of most children. Such twins almost universally use the pronoun “ we ” when referring to themselves,’ or when relating past experiences, and one young lady, a duplicate twin, confessed that she never felt like kissing her twin sister, on the ground that the latter did not seem like a distinct person. Cases are common in which duplicate twins are affected by the same diseases at the same time and with about the same result, and I know of two little twins with straight hair, who experienced typhoid fever together, after which their hair came out curly in each case. This constant and close companionship and participation in mutual experiences would naturally tend to a uniform development in each up to the period of adult life; but from this point on, in the majority of instances, the twins separate and the varied ‘experiences to which they then become subjected usually produce more or less marked differences in their later physical development.

Physical statistics, then, in order to be of value, should be taken during the younger life, or at least before there is any marked difference in experience, and in the four cases here presented (Table VI) these conditions are met with, as they are all those of young people, the age of each at the time of measurement being designated in the table. The Roman numerals are those of the sets in my collection as used elsewhere in this paper. The capital B, placed at the extreme left, designates a measurement as one that is employed in the Bertillon system. The measurements are in millimeters. In the next to the last line, under the item Weight, I, II and III are given in pounds, VI in kilos.

These statistics show that in twins of the age here represented there is quite a little difference, both in girths and lengths, although, as may be expected, there is a greater difference in those which depend upon

7 This form of language, almost as distinctive, when used habitually, as the "thee ” dialect of the Quakers, is well shown by the following extract from a letter from one of the sets in reply to a request for prints: “Our brother told us that we might hear from you and we were interested in your articles and shall be glad to take some prints of ourselves.”

Table VI. Measurements Of Four Sets Of Duplicate Twins

Designation of Measurements.

I II III IV Age when measured.. . . . 21.1 21.1 17.11 17.11 17.10 17.10 17.11 17.11 B Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1668 1682 1671 1656 1632 1631 1734 1740 Horizontal length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1760 1760 Height, sternum. . . . , , __ , 1409 1422 “ navel . . . . . . . . . . 1033 1030 H pubes.... 877 884 B H sitting . . . . . . . . . 890 900 “ knee . . . . . . . . . . . 494 490 Girth, head . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570 565 “ neck . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 339 350 “ chest, repose-3.. . . . . 750 758 700 720 745 752 825 890 “ chest, full... . . .:. 820 826 752 762 807 820 870 930 “ 9th rib . . . . . . . . . . . 720 705 600 635 620 630 . . . ‘

“ 9th rib, full . . . . . . 758 750 660 685 695 703 . . . . H waist . . . . . . . . . . . . 624 582 590 598 560 550 712 730

“ hips . . . . . . . . . . . . 932 952 865 905 915 930 852 870

“ right thigh . . . . . . . 512 466 475. 510 495 520 491 510

N left thigh . . . . . . . . 510 461 470 512 495 502 490 500

“ right knee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 352

“ left knee . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 350 345

“ right calf . . . . . . . . 323 331 330 338 335 322 342 350 “ left cs.lf.. . . . . . . . 320 327 335 340 310 317 356 355 “ right instep . . . . . . . . . 245 245 “ -left instep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 250 “ right upper arm. . 250 246 225 240 245 244 240 240 “ left upper arm. . . 245 243 230 240 234 243 232 235 “ right elbow . . . . . . . . . . . 250 230 “ left elbow . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . 240 227 “ ‘ right forearm. . . . 243 244 225 227 219 222 255 255 “ left forearm... . . _. 239 238 232 227 246 215 240 240 “ right wrist . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 162 165

“ left wrist . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 160 160

Depth, chest . . . . . . . . . . . 172 170 138 150 171 162 . .

“ abdomen . . . . . . . . . 165 178 122 122 123 120 . . . .

B Breadth, head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 154 “ neck............. .. ... .. .. .. .. 99 111 “ shoulders. . . . . . . . 374 867 857 362 329 344 395 425 “ nipples . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 185 185 “ waist . . . . . . . .. 190 197 191.9 189 162 164 247 254 “- hips.. . . . . . . . . . . . 307 316 322 328 268 278 808 322 Length, right shoulder e1bow......... . . .. 377 366 “ left shoulder elbow. . . . . 364 356 “ right elbow tlp. . . . . . . . . . 462 464 B N left elbow tip. . . . . . . . . . 463 454 “ rlght foot-.. . . . . . . . . . _ . ..' 262 255 B “ left foot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 256 B Stretch of arms.. . . . . . . . .. .. . .. , .. 1784 1770 Strength, back... . . .. . .. 60 60 65 _ 75 105 101 154 170 “ chest . . . . 28 22 28 34.2 28.2 26 .. .. N legs. . . . . . . . . . .. 70 70 105 102 115 105 175 175 ‘I right forearm" . . 27 28 26 25 26 . 26 38 42 H left forearm. . . . 23 18 21 19 21 22 86 .32 Capacity of lungs . . . . . .. 1.50 1.45 1.40 1.60 1.55 1.63 3.85 4.55 Total strength.......... .. .. .. .. .. 404 479 Welght................ 115 117.5 107 ' 113 113 114.5 57.1 59.3 Pl1oslty.. .. . .. .. . . . 2.2 2.1 460 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

the soft parts than in those dependent upon the skeletal parts. Even here, however, there is some difference, as in the standing height, which differs respectively by 14, 15, 1 and 6 mm. The difference in breadth of head in No. VI is of interest, since the skull would be but little affected by environment, and it would be a matter of great interest if we could have the breadth in the other cases and the length in all, that a comparison might be made of the cephalic indices. The marked difference in chest girth in No. VI would seem to point to a differing degree of interest in athletic sports possessed by these young men, but the difference in this item appears to be considerable in the other cases also, and is correlated with a variation in the breadth of shoulders save in I, in which the difference is on the wrong side. Unexpected differences are found in such items as the length of feet and the length of cubitus (left and right elbow tips) in No. VI, since they are based on skeletal parts. The variations in girth are more to be expected, as they are

easily influenced by varying causes, such as amount of exercise, condition of the digestive organs, etc.


As this paper has drawn so largely on previous work and, in the exposition of its theories, makes use of so many facts and principles that are already well known, an attempt will be made here to separate these from the immediate results of the present investigation, and to that end I will divide this summary into two parts, in the first of which, headed “ Results,” I will state the essential points of my own investigations, and will follow this by the “ Conclusions,” in which I will attempt a condensed statement of the theories ‘held by this paper, without reference to the sources from which the material has been derived. It should be emphasized that the “ Conclusions ” cited here are not stated as facts already proven, but as the various parts of a Working hypothesis seemingly consistent with the facts so far as known at present, and intended to suggest farther speculations in this field.

I. Results

1. My material has been derived from sixteen sets of twins and two sets of triplets, and includes:

a. Complete palm and sole prints of one set of triplets.

b. Complete palm and sole prints of six sets of twins.

c. Palm prints of nine other sets of twins.

d. Rolled finger prints of seven of the sets of twins; dabbed finger prints of the remainder.

e. Physical measurements of three of the above sets of twins and of one set of which I have no prints.

f. A photograph of a set of triplets.

2. The prints allow themselves to be classified in two distinct groups:

a. Those in which the main lines and other features of palms, soles and finger prints correspond to a remarkable degree.

b. Those in which the features just named show no greater similarity than in any two brothers and sisters of distinct birth, or between individuals not related.

3. These correspondences (those in the first group, 2 a) are limited to the course of the main lines of interpretation, and to the type, position, etc., of patterns or other macroscopic peculiarities, allowing some latitude in the relative size of the various areas. There is no correspondence in the characters of the individual ridges (the minutiae of Galton).

4. In the case of the finger patterns the correspondences are subject to the following exceptions:

a. The patterns of the index fingers are frequently different from one another, a condition occasionally met with in the thumbs, and once (in the present investigation) in the middle fingers.

b. In almost 50 per cent of the cases of general correspondence examined (4 out of 9), the patterns of one of the indices, either right or left, are of the same type in the two individuals of the set, but are exactly reversed, being the symmetrical equivalents of each other.

5. In the case of the palm and sole configuration, where there is a correspondence of main lines and other features, there is also usually, though not always, an approximate or exact correspondence between the markings of the right and left side, a relation which occurs occasionally in an individual not of multiple birth, but infrequently.

6. This correspondence in the configuration of the friction-skin of hand and feet is in all cases (with the exception of No. XIII) correlated with that marked correspondence in the physical appearance, including the facial features, which constitutes the type of twin commonly known as “identical,” here called “duplicate”; where, on the other hand, there is a lack of correspondence in one of these details, there is in the others also. These latter are called here “fraternal” twins. Out of sixteen sets of twins examined, nine sets of duplicate and six sets of fraternals exhibited the above principles in detail, and of a set of triplets, which consists of two boys and a girl, the boys were typical duplicates, while the girl, as related to the boys, was fraternal.

7. In set No. XIII, although the two individuals closely resemble one another, the details of the palms and soles do not wholly correspond. There seems at present no very satisfactory way of explaining these, unless it be to consider them (1) as true duplicates, and allow the possibility of some lack of correspondence in the friction-skin configuration, or (2) as fraternals that chance to look very much alike. Of these alternatives the second is here considered the more probable.

8. Physical measurements of four sets of duplicate twins between 17 and 21 years of age show that they are not identical in size, although the variations are for the most "part slight. Differences that depend upon skeletal parts are less than those depending upon the soft parts.


1. Twins belong to two types, duplicate and fraternal.

2. Fraternal twins result from the simultaneous ripening and consequent fertilization of two separate eggs, and are thus as distinctly different as are any other two children of different birth. They may be of the same or of different sex; each develops within -a separate chorion and possesses a separate placenta; they may or may not resemble one another; the palm, sole and finger markings do not correspond.

3. Duplicate twins are the result of the total separation of the first two blastomeres of a single egg, the product of the first cleavage, and therefore possess an identical germ pla-sm. They are invariably of the same sex; -they develop within a common chorion, but possess each a separate umbilical cord attached to a common placenta; they greatly resemble each other, usually to the point of confusion; the palm, sole and finger markings correspond in detail as far as but not including the minutiae.

4. Symmetrical double monsters (diplopagi) are closely related to the last, and result from a partial, instead of a total separation, of the first two blastomeres, the separation being suflicient to cause a loss of continuity and hence of relation, over a greater or less extent of surface. The components of such monstrous births are the physical duplicates of one another, and will doubtless be found to correspond in regard to palm, sole and finger configuration, as do separate duplicate twins. The double monsters of which we have authentic record are suificiently numerous and diverse to represent every stage from that of an otherwise normal individual with a doubling of certain of the median parts to that of two complete duplicate twins with a slight connection between them. They may also be arranged to represent several developmental series difiering geometrically from one another and corresponding to varia.tion»s in the place of separation of the first two blastomeres, or in their relative position.

5. Unequal double monsters (auitosite and parasite) are the result of a secondary fusion of two embryos, owing to a too great contiguity. It is probable that these are at first duplicate twins, the enclosure of which within a common chorion would furnish the crowded conditions necessary for such a fusion.


1. The normal mammalian egg, at least from the beginning of cleavage, possesses a definite architectural plan, having a fixed relation to that of the adult body. It seems probable that this plan is bilateral, and that, as in the frog’s egg, the first two blastomeres are right and left, and become the progenitors of the two sides of the adult, except that here they must give rise also to the two halves of the chorion and other extra embryonal parts.

2. A change of relationship in the early blastomeres will modify the development of each, as has been shown experimentally in the case of lower animals. In changes affecting the first two blastomeres, we may draw the following conclusions:

a. When they remain together in the normal position, the mutual contact upon the inner sides causes each to develop as a bilateral half.

b. When they separate and the inner sides, once in contact with each other, become external, 1'. e., placed in the same relations as are the other sides, each will develop the other half body as in the case of the entire ovum, and produce duplicate twins. This shows that the power to develop an entire organism when placed in the proper relations is retained by each of the early blastomeres up to a certain point, as has been proven experimentally to be the case in numerous lower animals.

c. When a separation of the first two blastomeres is incompletely effected, the parts that lose the contact relations develop independently as parts of entire individuals, while the parts that remain in normal contact develop each a half as usual. The various possibilities of partial separation give rise to -the various types of symmetrical double monsters


1. It is undeni-able that the facts presented in this paper point to some form of preformation, that is, to a mechanism in the nucleus of the 464 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

fertilized ovum which controls the development down to considerable detail. If the premises concerning the genesis of duplicate twins are true, we have given us by nature the convincing experiment of the separate development of two identical eggs, containing identical bits of germplasm, derived from the same original male and female germ-nuclei.

_ Indeed, we have for comparison the control experiment of the development of two different eggs simultaneously in the same uterus and under identical conditions, with results as different as might be expected from the premises, showing that the correspondence in the one case and the lack of it in the other are both based upon the composition of the germnuclei and are in no Way affected by subsequent conditions of development.

2. Concerning the correspondence of palm and sole patterns in the various sorts of twins (and triplets) the present investigations have yielded the following results:

a. Out of ten sets in which the physical resemblance was sufficiently remarkable for them to be considered duplicates, nine corresponded so completely_ in the palm patterns that out of 104 points compared (main lines, triradii and patterns) 94 were exact duplicates, and of the ten differences, two were probably due to an incompleteness in the print, while the remainder were very slight and usually due to an aberrancy in a single ridge. The tenth set (No. XIII) did not correspond.

b. In seven sets of twins that did not resemble one another (including the girl triplets as compared with the boys), there was no more correspondence between the palms of the two individuals than is usual in members of the same family.

c. The study of the sole prints of seven of the duplicate and two of the fraternal sets (all that I have) yielded the same results as in the case of the palms.

d. The finger patterns of duplicate twins are very similar, but in place of exact correspondences there sometimes occur patterns which are easily derived from one another but which would have different formulae in Gralton’s system. The differences of this kind are especially apt to happen in the index fingers; they sometimes occur also in the thumbs, and have been noted once in middle fingers.

e. In the case of duplicates the following additional phenomena have been observed in the majority of cases, but are not universal:

(1) A bilateral correspondence in the two palms or soles of each individual of a set.

(2) A reversal of the finger patterns in either the right or the left indices.

(3) Difierences occur much more frequently on the left side.

3. The influence of the germ-plasm and its mechanism (i. e., the direct control exercised by heredity) is exerted upon the friction-skin surfaces only so far as concerns the general configuration, i. e., the main lines, the patterns and other similar features; the individual ridges and their details (minutiae) are apparently under the control of individual mechanical laws to which they are subjected during growth. Have we then arrived at the limit of the control of the predetermining mechanism beyond which mechanical laws are alone operative; and is it then possible to hold that the modifica.t/ions in this latter field are the results of individual experience, and that they are similar in the various members of a given species solely because of similar environment? To these and similar questions we can have no answer at present; yet it seems likely that in the general subject of palm and sole markings, not only in man but in other mammals as well, we have a set of easily observed and very significant data which may yield important results to future investigators.



A1-ILFELD, 80-82.-—Missbildungen des Menschen. Leipzig. [With extensive atlas, in fol.]

BARKOW, 32.—M0nstra animalium Duplicia.

BATESON, g4.—Materials for the study of variation. Macmillan, London.

BLANC, 93.—Les anomalies chez l’homme et les mammiferes. Paris.

CREIGI-ITON, 9o,—Artic1e “Monsters” in Encyclopedia Britannica. 9th ed.

fiSHER, G. H., 55,——Diploterato1ogy. Trans, N. Y. Med. Soc.

Ff)'RsTER, 6z.—Die Missbildungen des Menschen, systematisch dargestellt. Jena. [With atlas of 26 4° plates, containing 524 figures, of which 162 are originals from specimens in the Wiirzburger Museum.]

GOULD and PYLE (about 9o).—Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine.

CRUBER, 5g.—Missbildungen. St. Petersburg. Mem. de 1’Acad. imp. des Sciences.

GUINARD, 92,—Precis de Teratologie; Anomalies et monstruosités chez1’h0mme et chez les animaux. Paris.

GURLT, 32,—Handbuch der pathol. Anat. der Haussaugethiere. [With a.tlas.]

Hrnsr and PIERSOL, g1—92.—Huznan Monstrosities. Philadelphia.

LICETUS, 1665.~De Monstris. Amsterdam. [In part fabulous: mainly of historical value.]

MECKEL, 12-13_—Handbuch der pathol. Anat. Halle.

15_—De duplicatate monstrosa commentarius. Halle and Berlin.

Nomns, 95,—Amerp. Textbook of Obstetrics. Philadelphia.

ST. HILAIRE, G., 32-37_—Histoire generale et particuliere des anomalies de Forganization chez l’homme et les animaux. Paris.

SCHULTZE, 0., 97,—Grundriss der Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen und

der Saugethiere. Leipzig. 466 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

VASCHIDE et VULPEAU, o3_——Essai sur la psycho-physiologic des monstres humains. Paris.

VROLIK, 4o-42.—Handbock der ziektekundige ontleedkunde, oder de menschelijke Vrucht beschouwd in hare regelmatige en onregelmatige Ontwikkeling. Amsterdam.

49_—Tabulae ad illustrandam embryogonesin. Amsterdam.


[Papers describing single instances of compound monsters are so numerous that an exhaustive bibliography of these would require many years of labor and form a volume in itself. In the following list there have been collected a series of titles, mainly those published within the last decade, which is intended to give the reader a general idea of the frequency of these occurrences and to guide him to descriptions of some of the latest and best studied

cases. Where exact titles have not been obtainable, the general subject is stated in brackets.]

on. Tho/racopagi.

BALL, 94, Ein Fall von Doppelmissbildung. Thoracopagus tetrabrachius. Inaug. Diss. Heidelberg. BAUDOUIN, 92_—Un nouveau cas de Xiphopage vivant; les soeurs RadicaDoodica d’Orissa. C. R. Acad. des. Sci., Tome 115, No. 21. Las hermanas Radica-Doodica Kettronaik d’Orissa. Anales ginecol. y pediat., Vol. VI. Barcelona. BERTSCIIE, 95_—Die Geburt von Brustzwillinge (Thoracodidymus) bei einer Kuh. Deutsche Thierartzl. Wochenschr., III, No. 19. DUNCAN, 95.—Conjoined twins (Thoracopagus). Trans. Gynaec. Soc. London, Vol. 57. GBUBER, W., 44,—Anatomie eines monstrum bicorporeum, eigenthiimliche Thoracogastrodidymus. Prag., 1844. JACQUES et DE NABELE, 92_——Sur un monstre Xiphopage. Clinique Bruxelles. An. 6. JAcGARn.—A case of Thoracopagus. Amer. Jour. Obstet., Vol. 27. New York. KEMPE, 95,—Thoracopagous male twins with a common heart; transposition of viscera in one twin. Brit. Med. Jour., No. 1823.

KLIMM, 95,—Ein Fall von Thoraco-pagus tetrabrachius. Inaug. Diss. Greifsv Wald.

LEMKE, 95,—Ein Thoracopagus dibrachius. Inaug. Diss. Konigsberg.

MAASS, 92_—Die zusammengewachsenen weiblichen Zwillingskinder. Radika und Doadika. Zeitsch. fiir Ethn0l., Bd. 24.

MACCALLUM, 78_—[Marie-Rosa Drouin.] Obstetr. Trans Vol. 20. Osnonx, H. L., o2.—The Anatomy of a double calf. Amer. Nat., Aug., 1902.

RAMOS, oo.—The Xiphopages; Rosalina and Maria. N. Y. Med. News, Vol. 76. REGNAUL'r.—Ecarts de la Nature.

ROUTH, oo-o1.—Specimen of fetus thoracopagus. Trans. Obstet. Soc, Vol. 42. London.

SMYLY, 92.—A case of double monster (Thoracopagus). Trans. Roy. Acad. Med. in Ireland, Vol. 10.

VASCHIDE et VURPAS, o2.—La vie biologique d’un Xiphopage. Nouv. icon. de la Salpetriere, Ann. 15, No. 3.

WINDLE, 94,-——(Report on Radica.-Doadica Khettronaik in Jour. Anat. and Physiol., Vol. 28, April, 1894.)

b. Omniopagi.

HOME, 17go.~Phil. Trans., 1790, Pt. II. [Describes a. monster with a supernumerary head, in a letter to John Hunter. This may be a case of Craniopagi with one body secondarily amputated.]

VILLENEUVE, 31,——Description d’une monstruosité consistant en deux fotus humains accolés en sens inverse par le sommet de la téte. Paris.

ZIEMATZKY, 9s,—La description d’un cas de la. craniopagie parietale. Bull. Acad. Imp. St. Petersburg, Series 5, Tome 8, No. 3.

c. Pygopagi.

ADOLPH, 94,——Ein menschlicher Pygopagus. Inaug. Diss. Marburg.

BAUDOUIN, 91,-[An article on the pygopagous twins, Rosa.-Josepha Blazek, in La Semaine‘Medicale, July 8, 1891, pp. 273-274.]

COLLINEAU, 92.—Teratologie; Rosa-Josepha. Revue mens. de l’ecole d’anthropologie de Paris, Ann. I.

l\/[AncHAND, 94.——-Ein menschlicher Pygopagus. Beitr. pathol. Anat. u. allgem.

Path01., Bd. 17, h. 1.

RODRIGUES, 94.—Noticias relativas a Millie-Christine, pygopage de la Carolina

del Norte (E. u. A.). Gazeta med. Mexico, Vol. 31.

d. Ischiopagi.

GEMMILLE, 02,-An ischiopagus tripus (human) with special reference to the compound limb. Jour. Anat. and Physiol., Vol. 36, N. S., Vol. 16,

Pt. 3. STERNBERG, oo.~Ein Fall von Ischiopagus. Miinchener Med. Wochenschrift, Jg. 48, No. 5.

e. Dicephaili, etc.

ALEXANDER, g9,—-Zur Anatomie der J anusartigen Doppelmissbildungen. Arch. f. Entwickelungsmechanik d. Organismen, Bd. 8, h. 4.

BALLANTYNE, g4-95,—Dr. Pallare’s dicephalic fetus. Teratologia, Vols. 1-2. [With an excellent photograph; typical case.]

BARBOUR,- 88.—[Account of a two-headed turtle] in Amer. Jour. Sci., Ser. 3, XXXVI.

EVE, 8o,—Description of a double-headed human female monster born at the full term of gestation. Obstetr. Trans., London, Vol. XXII.

FUSARI, 94,-Note anatomiche su di un mostro dicephalo. Atti accord. sc. med. e natur. in Ferrera, Anne 68, Fsc. 2.

GADEAU DE KERVILLE, 91_—Sur un jeune chien monstreux du genre Triocéphale. Bull. de la Soc. d’etude des sciences nat. d’Elbeuf, An. XI.

Locrrrn, g4,—Ein Fall Von Doppelmissbildung (Janiceps symmetros) nebst einen Beitrag zur Kenntniss des Situs transversum. Beitr. pathol. anat. u. allgem. Pathol., Bd..16, h. 2. 468 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

MEOLE et BAKUNIN, 94-95.~—Un caso di mostro diprosopo. Casa di matern. dell’Annunziata di Napoli. Arch. ostetr. e ginec., Anno 2, No. 1.

NEVEU-LEMAIEE, 9g.——Deseription anatomique d’un mouton tricéphale. Bull. Soc. Zool. de France, No. 2.

ONUF, B., 95,——A case of double formation of the face with craniorachis involving the whole vertebral column. N. Y. Med. Record, Vol. 48, No. 12.

SIBCAR, oomfiouble-headed male monster; diflicult labor and still birth. Indian Med. Journal, Calcutta.

TABUFfi, 9z.—Feto umano con due mandibole simmetriche. Mem. d. R. Acc. d. sci. di Bologna.

Voor, H., 95.—Dicephalus dibrachius. Norsk Magaz. f. Laegevidenskab, Aarg. 56, No. 11.

f. Doubled Genitals; and Other Pelvic Pm-ts, incl. Lower Limbs.

BALLANTYNE and SKIRVING, 94-95,——Diphallic terata. Teratologia, Vols. 1-2 (in 3 parts).

HART, 55,——A remarkable case of double monstrosity in an adult [Dos Santos]. London Lancet, July 29, 1865.

NEUGEBAUR, 93.——35 Falle von Verdoppelung der _ ausseren Geschlechsteile. Monatsschr. fiir Geburtsh. u. Gynaek., Bd. 7, h. 5.

WELLS, sa,——[Case of Mrs. B.; a dipygus.] Amer. Jour. of Obstetr., 1888.

WILLIAMS, o2.—Report of a case of labor with double uterus and vagina. Buffalo Med. Journal, Vol. 58.

g. Unspecified and Miscellcmeous.

BROWN, 97.—0n the anatomy of a. four-winged chick. Trans. Nat. Hist. Soc. Glasgow, N. S., Vol. 4, Pt. 3.

BUGNION, g3,—Monstre double chez le poulet. Arch. sci. phys. et nat., C. R. travaux 76 sess. soc. helvét. Lausanne, Sept., 1893.

GEMMILLE, oo.—The anatomy of symmetrical double monstrosities in the trout. Proc. Roy. Soc., Vol. 68, No. 444.

HARRIS, 92,—'1‘he blended Tocci brothers of Locana, Italy. Med. and Surg. Reporter, Philadelphia, Vol. 66.

LANDOIS, 93-94,—[Several instances of double formations among domestic

animals.) Westfal. Provinz—Ver. fiir Wissensch. u. Kunst., 22 Jahresbericht.

IVIAUREL et CROUZAT, oo.——Presentation de photographies d’un monstre double vivant de race annamite. Arch. Med. de Toulouse, 1900, No. 6.

MESHANE, 94—95,——A case of double monster in the practice of Dr. Minich of Worthington. Indiana Med. Jour., Indianapolis, Vol. 13.

Monomer, g5.—Considerations sur un monstre double. Internat. Med.—photogr. M0natschr., Bd. 1, h. 7.

WINDLE, 95,—0n double malformations among fishes. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1895, Pt. 3.

h. Parasitic Monsters.

BAETHOLINUS, 1654.—Hi-storiarum anatomicarum variorum Centuria. I and II. Hague, 1654. [The 66th history is that of Lazarus Colloredo, entitled “Frater pectori fratris c0mie.1ms.” An English translation of the most of this, together with a full-page engraving of Colloredo, appears in Gentleman’s Magazine, 1777, p. 260.]

BLUNDELL, 28-2g.—[ of fetus in fetu.] London Lancet, 1828-29, p. 260.

DICKINSON, 8o.—[Account of a child of five with a parasitic head.] St. Louis Med. and Surg. Journal, 1880.

Gentleman’s Magazine, Feb., 1752, p. 76. [Account of parasitic female monster, the counterpart of “ La1oo,” born in England] , 1777, p. 482; also 572.——-[Translation of the account of Bartholinus concerning Lazarus Co1loredo.]

MITCHELL, gI.—La1oo, the case of Omphalopagus Xiphodidymus. North Amer— ican Practitioner Vol. III.


BARTELS, 94.—Siebenlinge. Verhl., Berlin Gesellsch. fiir Anthropol., Jg. 26, h. 26.

BEBTILLON, g4.—[0n the relation between localities and multiple births.] Bull. de la Soc. d’ Anthrop, 1874.

EICHWALD, 7o,—[0n the symmetry of identical twins] in Pet. med. Zeitschr., 1870, No. 2.

GALTON, 75,—The history of the twins, as a. criterion of the relative powers of nature and nurture. Jour. Anthrop. Inst., 1875.

MIRABEAU, 94,—Ueber Drillingsgeburten. Miinchen, 1894.

RUMPE, 9;,—Ueber einige Unterschiede zwischen eineiigen und zweieiigen Zwillingen. Zeitsch. fiir Geburtsh. u. Gyn., Bd. 22.

SANITER, o;,—Dril1ingsgeburten; Eineiige Drillinge. Zeitschr. fiir Geburtsh. u. Gyn., Bd. 46.

STOKER, 95,_A case of quintuplets. London Lancet, 1895, No. 19.

LASALLI, 88.—[Reports a case of sextuplets] in Gazeta med. ital. lombard. Milano, 1888.

WINDLE, 92.-—A note on identical malformations in twins. Jour. Anat. and Physiol., Vol. 26.


As nearly every writer on compound monsters has engaged in speculations concerning their origin, theories on this head will be found in many of the papers cited above, especially in the general works. Aside from these the following deal primarily with the problems involved:

BALLANTYNE, g5.—-Teratogenesis. An inquiry into the causes of monstrosities. Edinb. Med. Jour., No. 487.

Bmzrunrn, 9g.—Die experimentelle Herstellung von Cauda. biflda bei Amphibienlarven. Arch. fiir Entwick.-1nechan., Bd. 9.

BEARD, o2.—The Germ Cells. Part I Raja batis. Z061. Jahrb. Anat. Abteil., Bd. 16. o3_—The embryology of tumours. Anat. Anz., Bd. 23, No. 18-19.

BLANCARD, o2.—Sur le role de l’amnios dans les malformations congenitales. These de doctorat en med., Paris. 470 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

BBAUN, 9z_—Ueber die Kunstliche Erzeugung von Doppel-, Halb-, und Zwergbildungen bei Tieren. Naturw. W0chenschr., Bd. 8, No. 27. BROMAN, o2.—Ueber atypische Spermien (speciell beim Menschen) und ihre mogliche Bedeutung. Anat. Anz., XII. DEBIERRE et DUTILLEUL, 9o_—Contribution 3. 1’etude des monstres doubles du genre Synote. Archiv de Physiol. norm. et pathol., Paris, 1890. FEBE, 93_—Deuxiéme note sur le developpement et sur la position de 1’embryon de poulet dans les oeufs 2 deux jaunes. Compt. Rend. Soc. Biol., Paris, Series 10, Tom. 5, No. 29. G-ERLACH, 83,—-Die Entstehungsweise der Doppelmissbildungen bei den hiiheren Wirbelthieren. Stuttgart, 1883. HABGITT, 99,——Some interesting egg—monstrosities. Zool. Bull., Vol. 2, No. 5. HABTMANN, 94,——Zur Lehre und Casuistik der Missbildungen (Cepha1othoracopagus). Miinch. Med. Wochenschr., Jg. 42, No. 9. KAESTNEB, 93_—Doppe1missbildungen bei Wirbelthieren. Ein Beitrag zur Casuistik. Arch. f. Anat. u. Physiol. Anat.-Abtei1., 1898, h. 2-3. MCCLUNG, o2.——The accessory chromosome—-sex determinant? (especially p. 80). Biol. Bull., Vol. III, 1-2. PANUM, 5o_—Untersuchungen fiber d. Entstehung der Missbildungen; zunachst in den Eiern der Vogel. Berlin, 1860. 73,——Beitrage zur Kenutniss der physiol. Bedeutung der angeborenen Missbildungen. Archiv fiir pathol. Anat. u. Physiol., 1878, Bd. 72. PEELS, 7g,——Lehrbuch der allgemeinen Aetiologie und der Missbildungen. Stuttgart, 1879. RAUBEB, 73.—Die Theorien der excessiven Monstra. Archiv fiir pathol. Anat. u. Physiol., Bd. 74. Roux, 88.~—Ueber das kunstliche Hervorbringen halber Embryonen, etc. Archiv f. pathol. Anat. u. Physio1., Bd. 114. SOBOTTA, o1.~Neuere Anschauungen uber Enstehung der Doppelbildungen mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der menschlichen Zwil1ingsgeburen. Wiirzburger Abhandl. ans (1. Gesammtgeb. d. Prakt. Med., Bd. 1, h. 4. THOMPSON, 44,—[An article said by Creighton to be “ of the first importance for the theory of double monsters.”] London and Edinb. Monthly Jour. of Med. Sci., July and August, 1844. TORNIER, 97_—Ueber experimentell erzeugte dreischwanzige Eidechsen und Doppelgliedmassen bei Molchen. Zool. Anz., Bd. 20, 1897. 97,—Ueber Operationsmethoden, welche sicher Hyperdaktylie erzeugen. Zool. Anz., Bd. 20, 1897. oo,—Ueber Amphibiengabelschwéinze und einige Grundgesetze der Regeneration. Zool. Anz., Bd. 23.

1900, Neues iiber das natiirliche Entstehung und experimentelle Erzeugen iiberzahliger und Zwillingsbildungen. Zool. Anz., Bd. 24. WEISSMANN, 39_—0n the number of polar bodies, and their significance in heredity. Essay VI, in English Translation of Essays, Oxford, 1889.

93,—The germ-plasm. Engl. Trans1., Scribners, New York.

o2.—Vortr§.ge iiber Descendenz-theorie.

WIEDEMANN, 94,-——Ueber die Enstehung der Doppelbildungen. Archiv pathol. Anat. Bd. 138, h. 1.

WINDLE, 93_—0n some conditions related to double monstrosity. Jour. Anat. and Physiol., Vol. 28, N. S., Vol. 8, Pt. 1.


v. EBNER (V. K<‘)‘LL1KE1z).—K511iker’s Handbuch der Gewebelehre des Menschen. 6te Ausgabe, 3tes Band, p. 544 ff.

V. FRANQUE, g8_—Beschreibung einiger seltener Eierstocks-pI"a'.parate. Zeitscli. fiir Geburtsh. u. Gyni—iko1., Bd. 29.

RABL, H., 99.—Mehrkernige Eizellen und mehreiige Follikel. Archiv mikr. Anat., Bd. 54.

SCHOTTLANDER, 93,—Ueber den Graaf’schen Follikel, seine Entstehung beim Menschen und seine Schicksal bei Menoh und Siiugetier. Archiv mikros. Anat., Bd. 41.

V. SCHUMACHER u. SCHWARZ, oo.—Mehrkernige Eizellen und mehreiige Follikel. Anat. Anz., Bd. 18, No. 1.

STOECKEL, 99_—Ueber Teilungsvorgéinge in Primordialeiern bei einer Erwachsenen.


ALLIX, 67-5s_—Recherches sur la. disposition des lignes papillaires de la main et du pied. Ann. des Sci. Na.t., Tom. VIII and Tom. IX.

FERE, oo.——Notes sur les mains et les empreintes digitales de quelques singes. Journ. de l’Anat. et de la Physiol., XXXVI, 3.

FERE et BATIGNY, 92,—Note sur les empreintes de la pulpe des doigts et des orteils. Compt. Rend. Hebdom. des Sci. et memories de la soc. de bio1., IX, S. 4, Vol. 1892.

GALTON, s3_——Persona1 identification. Jour. Royal Inst., May, 1888.

Also in Nature, 28 June, 1888.

9x,——Identification by finger—tips. Nineteenth Century, August, 1891.

91,—Method of indexing finger Marks. Proc. Roy. Soc., Vol. 49.

9;.—Patterns in thumb and finger marks. Phil. Trans, Vol. 182.

92.—finger-prints. Macmillan, London.

93_—Decipherment of blurred finger-prints. Macmillan, London.

95.—finger-print directories. Macmillan, London.

HEPBURN, 95.——The papillary ridges on the hands and feet of monkeys and man. Sci. Trans. R. Dublin Soc., Vol. V, Sci. II.

KLAATSCII, 88.~Zur Morphologie der Tastballen der Saugetiere. Morph. Jahrb., Bd. 14.

KOLLMANN, A., s3,—Der Tastapparat der Hand der menschlichen Rassen und

der Aften. Leipzig.

s5,—Der Tastapparat des Fusses Von Affe und Mensch. Leipzig.

MALPIGHI, 15s7.—De externo tactus organo exercitatio epistoiica ad Jacobum Rurflum. Batavia.

PURKENJE, z3.—Commentatio de examine physiologico organi vius et systematis cutanei, etc. Brelau.

IHH 472 Duplicate Twins and Double Monsters

WnIr1>LE.—The Ventral surface of the Mammalian Chiridium, with especial reference to the condition found in man. Zeitschr. fur Morphol. u. Anthropol. [In press.]

WILDEB, H. H., 97,—0n the disposition of the epidermic folds upon the palms

and soles of primates. Anat. Anz., Bd. 13, No. 89.

o2.—Pa.lms and Soles. Amer. Jour. Anat., Vol. I, No. 4.

o2.—-Scientific palmistry. Pop. Sci. Monthly, November, 1902.

o2.-Palm and sole impressions and their use for purposes of per sonal identification. Pop. Sci. Monthly, September, 1903. o4,—Racia1 difierences in palm and sole configuration. Amer. Anthropo1., April-June, 1904. DUPLICATE TWINS AND DOUBLE MONSTERS PLATE A H. H. WILDER


RM IIIM ‘2.%*‘i;%**1@“é%%%<9§%>©






Cite this page: Hill, M.A. (2019, August 20) Embryology Paper - Duplicate twins and double monsters. Retrieved from

What Links Here?
© Dr Mark Hill 2019, UNSW Embryology ISBN: 978 0 7334 2609 4 - UNSW CRICOS Provider Code No. 00098G