Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T16:12:31.037Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bibliography on Prenatal and Natal Influences in Twins*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Bronson Price
Bronson Price*
Affiliation:

Abstract

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

The author agrees with earlier writers that most of the differences observed in monozygotic pairs are due to unusual or extreme environmental factors acting before or during the twins' birth. Although they are typical of development in twins, these environmental factors can hardly be considered typical of development in other individuals. This point, as a review of the literature shows, is often overlooked by those who study twins in the childhood or adult age ranges. As a result the inferences drawn from twin differences are frequently mistaken, or at least quite exaggerated so far as the significance of postnatal influences in non-twins is concerned. At the same tihe, if allowance is made for the environmental biases peculiar to twin studies, the findings may be said to establish more about the importance of heredity in the medical and behavior sciences than most investigators have thought. In the author's opinion the largest single source of bias is the mutual circulation that exists during prenatal development of the majority of monozygotic pairs. Data on that circulation's difference-producing effects are reviewed and related to studies of mature twins. Effects of lateral inversions (asymmetry reversals) and of “natal” factors (chiefly conditions of delivery) are also reviewed, and methods of judging the importance of all three of the biasing conditions are outlined. Need for obtaining systematic and complete information about the natal factors is stressed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 27 , January 1978 , pp. 97 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1978

Footnotes

*

Editor's note: This list, with comments, was prepared by Price in 1950 and reproduced in mimeograph with the title “References to Twin Studies”. Mentioned in the 1950 paper, it was widely distributed in response to requests. We reproduce it here as mimeographed except for addition of four references given by Price in a later correspondence, a correction in one author's name, and corrections made by Price on his own copy.

References

Abbott, K.H., Camp, J.D. 1947. Extensive symmetrical cerebral calcification and chorioretinitis in identical twins (toxoplasmosis?). Bull. Los Angeles Neur. Soc, 12: 38–47.Google ScholarPubMed
Abt, I.A. 1925. Diseases and fate of twins. N. York State J.M., 25: 511–519.Google Scholar
Adair, F.L. 1930. Fetal malformations in multiple pregnancy. Am. J. Obst., 20: 539–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, F. 1849. The Genuine Works of Hippocrates (Vol. 1). London: Sydenham Society.Google Scholar
Ahlfeld, F. 1875–1879. Beitraege zur Lehre von den Zwillingen. Arch. Gynaek., 7: 210–286, 9: 196–261, 11: 160–172, 14: 321–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahlfeld, F. 1900. Rukovodstvo k akusherstvu. St. Petersburg: Sovremmennaya Meditsina.Google Scholar
Ahlfeld, F. 1902. Wie stellt sich das Zahlenverhaeltnis der eineiigen Zwillingen zu den Zweieiigen. Zschr. Geburtsh., 47: 230–235.Google Scholar
Ahlfeld, F. 1903. Lehrbuch der Geburtshilfe. Leipzig: Grunow.Google Scholar
Anderson, F.N., Schneidemann, N.V. 1933. A study of triplets including theories of their possible genetic relationships. Genet. Psychol. Monog., 14: 93–176.Google Scholar
Apert, E. 1923. Les Jumeaux: Etude Biologique, Physiologique et Médicale. Paris: E. Flammarion.Google Scholar
Ardashnikov, S.N., Lichtenstein, E.A., Martynova, R.P., Soboleva, G.V., Postnikova, E.N. 1936. The diagnosis of zygosity in twins; three instances of differences in taste acuity in identical twins. J. Hered., 27: 465–468.Google Scholar
Arestad, F.H., McGovern, M.A. 1949. Hospital service in the United States. J. Am. M. Ass., 140: 23–97.Google Scholar
Arey, L.B. 1922. Direct proof of the monozygotic origin of human identical twins. Chorionic fusion and augmented twinning in the human tube. Anat. Rec., 23: 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arieti, S. 1944. An interpretation of the divergent outcome of schizophrenia in identical twins. Psychiat. Quart., 18: 587–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assus, A., Laffont, A. 1950. La recherche des groupes sanguins dans le diagnostic de la gémellité unizygotique. Bull. Ass. Gyn. Obst. (Suppl. Gyn. Obst., Paris) 2: 436–437.Google Scholar
Bacsich, P., Smout, C.F.V. 1937. Some observations on the fetal vessels of the human placenta with an account of the corrosion technique. J. Anat., 72: 358–364.Google Scholar
Ballantyne, J.W. 1905. Manual of Antenatal Pathology and Hygiene (Vol. 2). The Embryo. New York: Wm. Wood.Google Scholar
Barker, R.G. 1947. The somatopsychologic problem. Psychosom. M., 9: 192–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Becker, P.E. 1948. Genetische und klinische Fragen bei Pickscher Krankheit (Mitteilung eines diskordanten eineiigen Zwillingspaares). Nervenarzt, 19: 355–364.Google Scholar
Benda, C.E. 1945. The late effects of cerebral birth injuries. Medicine, Bait., 24: 71–110.Google Scholar
Bernheim-Karrer, J. 1929. Ernaehrungsstudien an eineiigen Zwillingen. Zschr. Kinderh., 47: 427–442. (One of the early twin-control experiments).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertillon, L.-A. 1874. Des combinaisons de sexe dans les grossesses gémellaires (doubles ou triples), de leur cause, et de leur caractére ethnique. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris. 9: 267–290.Google Scholar
Blaskeslee, A.F., Banker, H.J. 1930. Identical twins as biological controls in educational and other human problems. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc., 69: 379–384.Google Scholar
Blatz, W.E., Chant, N., Charles, M.W., Fletcher, M.I., Ford, N., Harris, A.L., Macarthur, J.W., Mason, M., Millichamp, D.A. 1937. Collected Studies on the Dionne Quintuplets. Toronto: Univ. Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Bonnevie, K. 1924. Studies on papillary patterns of human fingers. J. Genetics. 15: 1–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borchardt, L. 1931. Intestinaler Infantilismus und Basedowsche Krankheit als Ursache wesentlicher Verschiedenheiten bei eineiigen Zwillingen. Zschr. menschl. Vererb., 16: 123–129.Google Scholar
Borgstroem, CA. 1939. Eine Serie von kriminellen Zwillingen. Arch. Rassenb. 33: 334–343.Google Scholar
Bossik, L.J. 1934. On the roles of heredity and environment in the physiology and pathology of childhood. Proc. Gorky Medico-Biol. Inst. Vol. 3. Moscow: Biomedgiz.Google Scholar
Bouterwek, H. 1934. Asymmetrien und Polaritaet bei erbgleichen Zwillingen. Arch. Rassenb., 28: 241–280. (For critiques of Bouterwek's view that intrageminal asymmetries cause marked personality differences see also Schiller 1936, Fischer 1939, and Gottschaldt 1939).Google Scholar
Bracken, H. von 1936 a. Verbundenheit und Ordnung im Binnenleben von Zwillingspaaren. Zschr. paed. Psychol. 37: 65–81.Google Scholar
Bracken, H. von 1936 a. Ueber die Sonderart der subjectiven Welt von Zwillingen. Arch. ges. Psychol., 97: 97–105.Google Scholar
Bracken, H. von 1939 a. Wahrnehmungstaeuschungen und scheinbare Nachbildgroesse bei Zwillingen. Arch. ges. Psychol. 103: 203–230.Google Scholar
Bracken, H. von 1939 b. Das Schreibtempo von Zwillingen und die sozialpsychologischen Fehlerquellen der Zwillingsforschung. Zschr. menschl. Vererb. 23: 278–298.Google Scholar
Bradway, K.P. 1937. Birth lesions in identical twins. Am. J. Ortho-psychiat., 7: 194–203.Google Scholar
Brander, T. 1935. Ueber die Bedeutung der Exoge-nese fuer die Enstehung des Schwachsinnes, beleuchtet durch Untersuchungen an Zwillingen. Mschr. Kinderh., 63: 276–293.Google Scholar
Brander, T. 1937 a. Ueber die Bedeutung des unternormalen Geburtsgewichts fuer die weitere koer-perliche und geistige Entwicklung der Zwillinge. Zschr. menschl. Vererb., 21: 306–313.Google Scholar
Brander, T. 1937 b. Ueber die Zwillingsforschung und ihre Beruehrungspunkte mit der Kinderheilkunde. Acta Paediat. Upps. 21: 5–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brander, T. 1940. Welche prognostische Bedeutung hat die Reihenfolge bei der Geburt fuer die Zwillinge. Zur Frage Erblichkeit der angeborenen spastischen Hemiplegien. Acta Paediat. Upps. Suppl., 28-1: 100–122.Google Scholar
Brody, D. 1938. Twin resemblances in mechanical ability, with reference to the effects of practice on performance. Child Develop. 8: 207–216.Google Scholar
Browne, F.J. 1946. Antenatal and Postnatal Care (6th ed.). London: J. & A. Churchill.Google Scholar
Brucker, W.H. 1944. The influence of heredity and environment on the caries picture of monozygotic twins. J. Am. Dent. Ass., 31-B: 931–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugger, K. 1939. Die Vererbung geistiger Stoerungen. Verh. Schweiz, naturforsch. Ges. 119 (part 2): 77–78.Google Scholar
Buettner, O. 1920. Christian Friedrich Schatz, 1841-1920. Zbl. Gynaek., 44: 745–749.Google Scholar
Buhl, L. 1861. Klinik der Geburstskunde; Beobachtungen und Untersuchungen (Bd. I). Leipzig: Englemann.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, H. 1929. Ueber ein diskordantes eineiiges Zwillingspaar. Zschr. ges. Neur. Psychiat., 121: 277–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burks, B.S. 1928. A summary of the literature on the determiners of the intelligence quotient and the educational quotient. Nat. Soc. Study Educ. Yearbook, Part II, 27: 248–253. (On pages 261-262 Burks precisely stated the meaning of the kind of postnatal bias which some reviewers have thought was first noted by later writers).Google Scholar
Burks, B.S. 1938. (Review of studies by Rosanoff and others). J. Abnor. Soc. Psychol., 33: 128–133. (Here Burks pointed out that the twin differences which Rosanoff attributed mainly to natal factors were also explainable in terms of “the developmental hazards to which twins are exposed during prenatal life”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burks, B.S. 1942. A study of identical twins reared apart under differing types of family relationships. In: Studies in Personality, Honoring L.M. Terman. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Burks, B.S. 1940. Mental and physical developmental patterns of identical twins in relation to organismic growth theory. Nat. Soc. Study Educ. Yearbook, 39: 85–96.Google Scholar
Burks, B.S., Roe, A. 1949. Studies of identical twins reared apart. Psychol. Monogr., 63 (No. 5): 1–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burlingham, D.T. 1946. Twins; observations of environmental influences on their development. Psychoanal. Stud. Child., 2: 61–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burnham, R.W. 1940. Case studies of identical twins. J. Genet. Psychol., 57: 323–351.Google Scholar
Carter, H.D. 1932. Identical twins reared together. J. Hered., 23: 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, H.D. 1934. Case studies of mature identical twins. J. Genet. Psychol., 44: 154–174.Google Scholar
Carter, H.D. 1940. Ten years of research on twins; contributions to the nature-nurture problem. Nat. Soc. Study Educ. Yearbook, Part I. 39: 235–255.Google Scholar
Cattell, R.B., Molteno, V.E. 1940. Contributions concerning mental inheritance. II. Temperament. J. Genet. Psychol., 57: 31–47.Google Scholar
Chapin, C.L. 1917. A microscopic study of the reproductive system of fetal free-martins. J. Exper. Zool. 23: 453–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, J. 1793. Description of an extraordinary production of human generation, with observations. Philos. Trans., 83: 154–163.Google Scholar
Claudius, M. 1859. Die Entwicklung der herzlosen Missgeburten. Kiel: Schwers.Google Scholar
Cobb, M.V. 1915. Evidence bearing on the origin of human twins from a single ovum. Science, 41: 501–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cockayne, E.A. 1911. Disease in homogeneous twins.Brit. J. Child., 8: 487–490.Google Scholar
Cockayne, E.A. 1939. Transposition of the viscera and other reversals of symmetry in monozygotic twins. Biometrika, 31: 285–294.Google Scholar
Cohen, J.T., Oliver, CP., Bernick, S. 1942. Dental studies of triplets, I and II. J. Dent. Res., 21: 233–239 and 413–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conklin, E.G. 1903. The cause of inverse symmetry. Anat. Anzeiger., 23: 577–588.Google Scholar
Conrad, K. 1935. Erbanlage und Epilepsie. I. Untersuchungen an einer Serie von 253 Zwillingspaaren. Zschr. ges. Neur. Psychiat. 153: 271–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, K. 1936 a. Erbanlage und Epilepsie. II. Ein Beitrag zur Zwillingskasuistik. Die Konkordanten Eineiigen. Zschr. ges. Neur. Psychiat., 155: 254–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, K. 19366. Erbanlage und Epilepsie. III. Ein Beitrag zur Zwillingskasuistik. Die diskordanten Eineiigen. Zschr. ges. Neur. Psychiat., 155:509–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, K. 1937. Zwillingspathologie. Fortsch. Neur. Psychiat., 9: 197–212.Google Scholar
Conti, E.A., Glenn, J.W. 1946. Hemolytic diseases associated with the Rh factor in twin pregnancies. Am. J. Obst., 52: 446–450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, R.C. 1951. Human Fertility. The Modern Dilemma. New York: Wm. Sloane. (See pages 221–222, chapter 11).Google Scholar
Cooper, W. 1775. An account of an extraordinary acephalous birth; letter to William Hunter. Philos. Trans., 65: 311–321.Google Scholar
Cornacchione, M., Gotlib, M.H., Huse, W., Taube, J.I. 1950. Twins: one macerated, the other near term and normal; case report. J. Indiana St. M. Ass., 43: 1207–1210.Google Scholar
Corner, G.W. 1922. The morphological theory of monochorionic twins as illustrated by a series of supposed early twin embryos of the pig. Bull. Johns Hopkins Hosp. 33: 389–392.Google Scholar
Coulton, D., Hertig, A.T., Long, W.N. 1947. Monoamniotic twins. Am. J. Obst., 54: 119–123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craike, W.H., Slater, E., Burden, G. 1945. Folie à deux in uniovular twins reared apart. Brain, Lond., 68: 213–221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Creip, L.H. 1942. Allergy in identical twins; a report on seven pairs. J. Allergy, 13: 591–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crew, F.E.A. 1947. Twins and triplets, quadruplets and quintuplets. Practitioner, 158: 233–244.Google ScholarPubMed
Critchley, M. 1939. Identical twins, one suffering from petit mal, both with abnormal electroencephalograms. Proc. Roy. Soc. M., Lond., 32: 1417.Google Scholar
Cromwell, H., Rife, D.C. 1942. Dermatoglyphics in relation to functional handedness. Human Biol., 14: 516–526.Google Scholar
Cronin, H.J. 1933. An analysis of the neuroses of identical twins. Psychoanal. Rev., 20: 375–387.Google Scholar
Cummins, H. 1930. Dermatoglyphics in twins of known chorionic history, with reference to diagnosis of the twin varieties. Anat. Rec., 46: 179–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, H., Mairs, G.T. 1934. Finger prints of conjoined twins and their genetic significance. J. Hered. 25: 237–243. (Authors felt that differences in conjoined pairs were “merely” due to their disturbed developmental environment).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtius, F. 1930. Nachgeburtsbefunde bei Zwillingen und Aehnlichkeits-diagnose. I. Arch. Gynaek., 140: 361–366. (See also Lassen, Steiner).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlberg, G. 1926. Twin Births and Twins from a Hereditary Point of View. Stockholm: A.-B. Tidens Tryckeri.Google Scholar
Dahlberg, G. 1930. Genotypische Asymmetrien. Zschr. Indukt. Abstamm. 53: 133–148.Google Scholar
Dahlberg, G. 1942. Methodik zur Unterscheidung von Erblichkeits und Milieuvariationen mit Hilfe von Zwillingen. Hereditas, 28: 409–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlberg, G. 1943. Genotypic asymmetries. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 62-B: 20–31.Google Scholar
Dahlberg, G. 1945. Nature, nurture, and probability. Nature, 156: 539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlberg, G. 1948. Environment, inheritance, and random variations, with special reference to investigations on twins. Acta Genet. Stat. M., 1: 1–114.Google ScholarPubMed
Dahlberg, G., Dahlberg, B. 1942. Ueber Karies und andere Zahnveraenderungen bei Zwillingen. Upsala Laek. Foeren, 47: 395–416.Google Scholar
Dahr, P. 1941. Serologische Untersuchungen bei 330 Zwillingspaaren. Zschr. Rassenphysiol. 12: 1–17.Google Scholar
Daiser, K.W. 1939. Ein Beitrag zum Zwillingsproblem an Hand in der Universitaets-Frauenklinik Tuebingen erfolgten Mehrlingsgeburten der Jahre 1908-1939. Arch. Gynaek., 169: 754–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danforth, C.H. 1916. Is twinning hereditary? J. Hered. 7: 194–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danforth, C.H. 1919 a. Resemblance and difference in twins. J. Hered. 10: 399–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danforth, C.H. 1919 b. A comparison of the hands of a pair of polydactyl Negro twins. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop., 2: 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danforth, C.H. 1924. The heredity of unilateral variations in man. Genetics, 9: 199–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Danforth, C.H. 1925. Hereditary doubling suggesting anomalous chromatin distribution in the mouse. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med., 23: 145–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danforth, C.H. 1930. Developmental anomalies in a special strain of mice. Am. J. Anat., 45: 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danforth, C.H. 1932. Artificial and hereditary suppression of sacral vertebrae in the fowl. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med., 30: 143–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dareste, C. 1873–1874. Discussion sur les monstres doubles. De la duplicité monstrueuse. Bull, (et Mem.) Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 8: 880–884; 893–897; 900; 9: 14–25; 147–155; 321–338.Google Scholar
Demy, G.N. 1944. Erythroblastosis fetalis in identical twins. Am. J. Obst. 47: 554–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennie, C.C. 1924. Heredosyphilitic twins. M. Clin. N. Am., 7: 1219–1229.Google Scholar
De Siebenthal, R. 1945. Les accouchements géméllaires à la Maternité de Genève de 1934 à 1943. Mschr. Geburtsh. Gynaek., 120: 288–328.Google Scholar
De Superville, D. 1739. Some reflections on generation, and on monster, with a description of some particular monsters. Philos. Trans. 41: 294–296.Google Scholar
Diehl, K., Verschuer, O. von, 1933. Zwillingstuberkulose; Zwillingsforschung und erbliche Tuberkulosedisposition. Jena: G. Fischer.Google Scholar
Diezel, P. 1949. Rh-Faktor und foetale Erythroblastose bei diskordant eineiigen Zwillingen. Deut. med. Wschr. 74: 958–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dods, M. (Transl.) 1871. Augustine, A., The City of God. Edinburgh: T. Clark.Google Scholar
Eckle, C. 1939. Erbcharakterologische Zwillingsuntersuchungen. Zschr. angew. Psychol. Beih. 61. (255 pages).Google Scholar
Edmonds, H.W., Hawkins, J.W. 1941. The relationship of twins, teratomas, and ovarian dermoids. Cancer Res., 1: 896–899.Google Scholar
Elben, E. 1821. De Acephalis Sive Monstris Corde Carentibus. Berlin: L. Quien.Google Scholar
Elsaesser, K. 1906. Zur Entstehung von Brachy- und Dolichocephalie durch willkuerliche Beeinflussung des kindlichen Schaedels. Zbl. Gynaek., 30: 422–424. (See Walcher).Google Scholar
Engelhorn, E. 1927. Die mehrfache Schwangerschaft und Geburt. In Halban, J. and Seitz, I. (Eds.): Biologie und Pathologie des Weibes (Bd. 7). Berlin: Urban and Schwarzenburg.Google Scholar
Eschricht, 1836. Aeussere maennliche mit inneren weiblichen Genitalen bei einem menschlichen Foetus. Muellers Arch. (1836 vol.): 139–144.Google Scholar
Essen-Moeller, E. 1941 a. Empirische Aehnlichkeits-diagnose bei Zwilligen. Hereditas, 27: 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Essen-Moeller, E. 1941 b. Psychiatrische Untersuchungen an einer Serie von Zwillingen. Acta Psychiat. Neur. Suppl., 23: 7–200.Google Scholar
Euphrat, H. 1888. Ueber das Zwillingsirresein. Allg. Zschr. Psychiat. 44: 194–208. (This review of early studies did much to stimulate later work).Google Scholar
Ewen, A.H., Hummason, F. 1947. Ovine freemartin. J. Hered., 38: 149–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fabing, H. 1934. Tuberous sclerosis with epilepsy (epiloia) in identical twins. Brain, Lond., 57: 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falls, H.F. 1947. Inheritance of retinoblastoma. J. Am. M. Ass., 133: 171–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Favreau, 1925. Communications vasculaire entre placentas biovulaires; le free-martinisme. Bull. Soc. Obst. Gyn. Paris, 14: 384–385.Google Scholar
Faxen, N. 1935. Hypothyroidism in one of twins. Acta Paediat., Upps. 17: 565–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, W.M. 1937. Fetal diseases, malformations and monstrosities. Brit. Encycl. Med. Practice, 5: 334–387.Google Scholar
Fischer, E. 1939. Versuch einer Phaenogenetik der normalen koerperlichen Eigenschaften des Menschen. Zschr. indukt. Abstamm., 76: 45–115.Google Scholar
Fisher, G.J. 1866. Diploteratology. II. Classification and nomenclature. Trans. Med. Soc. State of N.Y. (1866 vol.): 207–296.Google Scholar
Fisher, R.A. 1927. Triplet children in Great Britain and Ireland. Proc. Roy. Soc, B-102: 286–311.Google Scholar
Fisher, R.A. 1929. Twins and twinning. Encycl. Britannica, (14th ed.) 22: 638–639. (Apparently prepared before Siemens (1925) confirmed the existence of dichorial monozygoic pairs, this article was not changed until the 1946 printing of the Britannica and was one of the important reference sources perpetuating the idea that all monozygotic pairs were monochorial).Google Scholar
Foerster, A. 1865. Die Missbildungen des Menschen systematisch dargestellt. Jena: F. Mauke.Google Scholar
Ford, F.R. 1926. Cerebral birth injuries and their results. Medicine, Bait. 5: 121–194.Google Scholar
Ford, N., Brown, A., McCreary, J.E. 1941. Evidence of monozygosity and disturbance of growth in twins with pyloric stenosis. Am. J. Dis. Child. 61: 41–53.Google Scholar
Ford, N., Frumpkin, S. 1942. Monozygosity in mongoloid twins. Am. J. Dis. Child. 63: 847–857.Google Scholar
Fortuyn, A.B.D. 1932. Modern research on twins. Q. Rev. Biol., 7: 298–306.Google Scholar
Fowler, E.P. 1947. Otosclerosis in identical twins. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. 56: 368–378.Google ScholarPubMed
Francioni, C. 1919. Sullo studio dei gemelli. Riv. Clin. Pediat., 8: 57–82.Google Scholar
Fraser, J. 1923. Placental circulation. Am. J. Obst., 6: 645–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, F.N. 1941. Cooperative research with adequate support. J. Educ. Res., 34: 321:326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, W. 1935. Symptomatic epilepsy in one of identical twins: a study of the epileptic character. J. Neur. Psychopath., Lond. 15: 210–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedman, M., Kasanin, J. 1943. Hypertension in only one of identical twins; report of a case with consideration of psychosomatic factors. Arch. Int. M., 72: 767–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frischeisen-Koehler, I. 1930. Untersuchungen an Schulzeugnissen von Zwillingen. Zschr. angew. Psychol., 37: 385–416.Google Scholar
Galton, F. 1875 a. The history of twins as a criterion of the relative powers of nature and nurture. Fraser's Magazine, 12: 566–576.Google Scholar
Galton, F. 18756. Short notes on heredity, etc., in twins. J. Anthrop. Inst. Great Brit, and Ireland, 5: 324–329.Google Scholar
Galton, F. 1875 c. A theory of heredity. J. Anthrop. Inst. Great Brit, and Ireland, 5: 329–348.Google Scholar
Galton, F. 1876. The history of twins as a criterion of the relative powers of nature and nurture. J. Anthrop. Inst. Great Brit, and Ireland, 5: 391–406.Google Scholar
Galton, F. 1883. History of twins. In: Inquiries into Human Faculty (1st ed.). New York: MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galton, F. 1907. History of twins. In: Inquiries into Human Faculty (2nd ed.) New York: Everyman's Library.Google Scholar
Galton, F. 1909. Memories of my Life. New York: Dutton and Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, I.C., Newman, H.H. 1943. Studies of quadruplets. V. The only living one-egg quadruplets. J. Hered., 34: 259–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, I.C., Newman, H.H. 1944. Studies of quadruplets. VII. The Schenses, four-egg quadruplets. J. Hered., 35: 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrison, R.F. 1949. Pyloric stenosis in one of identical twins. J. Pediat. 35: 207–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gates, R.R. 1946. Human Genetics (Vol. 2). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Gebbing, M. 1936. Interne und neurologische Zwillingsstudien. Deut. Arch. klin. Med. 178: 472–496.Google Scholar
Gedda, L. 1950. Lo studio dei gemelli nella scienza. Minerva med., 41: 213–216.Google Scholar
Gemmill, J.F., Stewart, J. 1916. Omphalopagus twins in the human subject. J. Anat., Lond. 50: 316–323.Google Scholar
Geoffroy-St. Hilaire, I. 1837. Histoire Générale et Particulière des Anomalies de l'Organisation chez l'Homme et les Animaux, III. Paris: Baillière. (See pp. 1–245).Google Scholar
Gesell, A. 1921. Hemihypertrophy and mental defect. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 6: 400–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gesell, A. 1922. Mental and physical correspondence in twins. Sci. Monthly 14: 305–344 and 415–428.Google Scholar
Gesell, A. 1931. The developmental psychology of twins. In: Murchison, C. (Ed.): A Handbook of Child Psychology. Worcester: Clark Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Gesell, A. 1946. Some relationships between maturation and acculturation. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 103: 518–520.Google ScholarPubMed
Gesell, A., Blake, E.M. 1936. Twinning and ocular pathology, with a report of bilateral muscular coloboma in monozygotic twins. Arch. Ophth. 15: 1051–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gesell, A., Thompson, H. 1929. Learning and growth in identical infant twins. Genet. Psychol. Monog., 6: 1–124.Google Scholar
Gesell, A., Thompson, H. 1941. Twins T and C from infancy to adolescence; a biogenetic study of individual differences by the method of co-twin control. Genet. Psychol. Monogr., 24: 3–122.Google Scholar
Geyer, H. 1940. Gegensaetzliche Aeusserung seelischer Anlagen bei erbgleichen Zwillingen. Zschr. menschl. Vererb., 24: 536–546.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. 1733. An essay on the nutrition of the fetus in utero. Med. Essays and Observ. Edinb., 1: 171–203.Google Scholar
Glaister, J. 1894. William Smellie and his Contemporaries. Glasgow: Maclehose. (In this otherwise valuable and definitive work, Glaister unaccountably and seriously erred in saying (page 193) that Smellie “declined to commit himself” about the independence of maternal and fetal circulations. Smellie clearly concluded his discussion of the problem by committing himself, and was in fact the first obstetrician to do so).Google Scholar
Glatzel, H. 1931. Beitraege zur Zwillingspathologie. Zschr. klin. Med., 116: 632–668.Google Scholar
Glees, M. 1940. Ergebnisse von Zwillingsuntersuchungen. Ber. Deut. ophth. Ges., 53: 177–181.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, R.R. 1948. Congenital bilateral complete absence of the radius in identical twins. J. Bone Surg., 30-A: 1001–1003. (This pair were concordant for three defects, and yet discordant in that two digits were missing from one hand of only one twin; cf. Quisenberry 1944).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, R.B. 1920. Die quantitative Grundlage von Vererbung und Artbildung. Roux Vortr. Aufs. Entwickl. Org., 24: 1–163.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, R.B. 1927. Physiologische Theorie der Vererbung. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, R.B. 1935. Gen und Ausseneigenschaft, I. Zschr. indukt. Abstamm., 69: 38–69.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, R.B. 1938. Physiological Genetics. New York: McGraw-Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, R.B. 1940. The Material Basis of Evolution. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Goll, H. 1940. Akrocephalosyndaktylie mit Spalthand bei einem Partner eines eineiigen Zwillingspaares. Zschr. menschl. Vererb., 24: 516–535.Google Scholar
Gorer, P.A. 1938. The genetic interpretation of studies on cancer in twins. Ann. Eugen., 8: 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, R.G., Roberts, J.A.F. 1938. Paraplegia and mongolism in twins. Arch. Dis. Childh., Lond., 13: 79–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gosset, W.S. (See Student).Google Scholar
Gottschaidt, K. 1939. Phaenogenetische Fragestellung im Bereich der Erbpsychologie. Zschr. indukt. Abstamm., 76: 118–157.Google Scholar
Gottschick, J. 1937. Die Zwillingsmethode und ihre Anwendbarkeit in der menschlichen Erb- und Rassenforschung. Die beiden Hauptfragen der Zwillingsbiologie. Arch. Rassenb., 31: 185–210 and 337–394.Google Scholar
Gottschick, J. 1939. Sprachpsychologie. Zwillingsuntersuchungen. Arch. ges. Psychol., 103: 1–70.Google Scholar
Graewe, H. 1938. Zwillinge und Schule. Erfurt: K. Stenger.Google Scholar
Grebe, H. 1949. Anencephalie bei einem Paarling von eineiigen Zwillingen. Virchows Arch. 316: 116–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greulich, W.W. 1934. Heredity in human twinning. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol., 19: 391–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grillmayr, W., Kohlmann, T. 1949. Diskordante psychiatrische Bilder bei einem eineiigem Zwillingspaar. Wien. Zschr. Nervenh., 2: 441–460.Google Scholar
Grueneberg, H. 1947. Animal Genetics and Medicine. London: H. Hamilton.Google Scholar
Gruenwald, P. 1942. Early human twins with peculiar relations to each other and the chorion. Anat. Ree, 83: 267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruenwald, P. 1947. Mechanisms of abnormal development. Arch. Path., Chic. 44: 398–436, 495–559, and 648–664.Google ScholarPubMed
Guerich, H. 1937. Kongenitales Ektropium uveae bei eineiigen Zwillingen. Klin. Mbl. Augenh., 99: 345–349.Google Scholar
Guldberg, E. 1938. Verschiedengeschlechtige eineiige Zwillinge. Acta Path. Microb. Scand. Suppl., 37: 197–223.Google Scholar
Guttmacher, A.F., 1937–1939. An analysis of 573 cases of twin pregnancy. I. Differences in single and double ovum twinning. II. The hazards of pregnancy itself. Am. J. Obst., 34: 76–84. 38: 277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guttmacher, A.F., Rand, E. 1933. Life in the Making. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Hall, M. 1844. On the circulation in an acardiac fetus. London and Edinb. Mo. J. M. Sci., 3: 541–547.Google Scholar
Hamblen, E.C., Baker, R.D., Derieux, G.D. 1937. Roentgenographic diagnosis and anatomic studies of a quintuple pregnancy. J. Am. M. Ass. 109: 10–12. (Imbalance in the mutual circulation almost certainly produced the one deformed fetus in this monochorial set, which were the only fully reported monozygotic quintuplets born in this country).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, W.J., Boyd, J.D., Mossman, H.W. 1945. Human Embryology. Prenatal Development of Form and Function. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
Hamlett, G.W., Wislocki, G.B. 1934. Proposed classification for types of twins in mammals. Anat. Ree, 61: 81–96. (This classification disregarded dichorial monozygotic cases, the existence of which had been firmly established by the work of Siemens, Curtius, and Lassen at that time).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanhart, E., Hautman, F., Schneider, G. 1950. Sur la concordance de l'idiotie chez les jumeaux univi-tellins. Arch. Julius Klaus Stift., 25: 10–12.Google Scholar
Harris, R.P. 1874. Historical and analogical record of the Siamese twins. Am. J.M. Sci., 68: 359–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, D.B. 1912. Numan, the veterinarian and comparative anatomist of Utrecht; a forgotten observer on the free-martin. Trans. Edinb. Obst. Soc, 37: 89–129.Google ScholarPubMed
Hart, D.B. 1918. John Hunter's free-martin; with remarks on some recent investigations. Edinb. M.J., 20: 84–93.Google Scholar
Hart, D., Moody, J.D. 1949. Sex ratio; experimental studies demonstrating controlled variations — preliminary report. Ann. Surg., 129: 550–571. (These authors mistakenly assumed that all monozygotic pairs were monochorial).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartman, C.G. 1920. The free-martin and its reciprocal; the opossum, man, dog. Science 52: 469–471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartman, C.G. 1926. Polynuclear ova and polyovular follicles in the opossum and other mammals, with special reference to the problem of fecundity. Am. J. Anat., 37: 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, C.G., League, B. 1925. Description of a sex-intergrade opossum, with an analysis of the constituents of its gonads. Anat. Rec., 29: 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, G. 1939. Application of individual taste difference towards phenylthiocarbamide in genetic investigations. Ann. Eugen., 9: 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, H. 1933. Ueber Zwillingsforschung in der Psychiatrie. Wien. med. Wschr., 83: 781–785 and 809–811.Google Scholar
Hartmann, H., Stumpfl, F. 1933. Ein Beitrag zum Thema; Zwillingsprobleme der Schizophrenie und zur Frage der Vererbung musikalischer Begabung. Zschr. ges. Neur. Psychiat., 143: 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havranek, J. 1949. Diabète juvenil avec hépatomégalie, nanisme et obésité chez un jumeau né d'une grossesse univitelline. Cas. lék. cesk., 88: 71–74.Google Scholar
Hecker, C. 1864. Klinik der Geburtskunde; Beobachtungen und Untersuchunge, II. Leipzig: Englemann.Google Scholar
Heinonen, O. 1924. Ueber die Refraktion bei eineiigen Zwillingen, speziell in Hinsicht der asymmetrischen Faelle. Acta Ophth., 2: 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helwig-Larsen, H.R. 1947. Situs inversus in one monozygotic twin. Ann. Eugen., 14: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C.F. 1850. De Monstris Acephalis. Hafniae: Bianco Luno.Google Scholar
Hensen, V. 1881. Die Physiologie der Zeugung. In: Hermann, L. : Handbuch der Physiologie (Bd. 6). !Leipzig: Vogel.Google Scholar
Herrman, L., Hogben, L. 1932. The intellectual resemblances of twins. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb., 53: 105–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J.P. 1926. Embryological development of Ha-pale jacchus. J. Anat., Cambridge, 60: 486–487.Google Scholar
Hill, J.P. 1932. The developmental history of the primates. Phil. Trans. Roy Soc, London, B221: 45–178; with 120 plates. (See p. 100-101 regarding placentation in marmosets).Google Scholar
Hirsch, N.D.M. 1930. Twins, Heredity and Environment. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, G.E. 1941. Mental disorder in one of a pair of identical twins. Am. J. Psychiat. 98: 447–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, J.E., Jaudon, J.C. 1939. A phenomenal single ovum twin pregnancy. Am. J. Obst., 38: 504–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgkin, Cooper A. 1836. The history of an unusuallyformed placenta and imperfect fetus, and of similar examples of monstrous productions; with an account of the structure of the placenta and fetus. Guy's Hosp. Rep., Lond. 1: 218–240.Google Scholar
Hofstetter, H.W. 1948. Accommodative convergence in identical twins. Am. J. Optom., 25: 480–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holzinger, K 1929. The relative effect of nature and nurture influences in twin differences. J. Educ. Psychol., 20: 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houston, J. 1836. An account of a human fetus without brain, heart or lungs, with observations on the nature and cause of the circulation in such monsters. Dublin J. M. Sci., 10: 204–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houston, J. 1844. On the circulation of the blood in acardiac fetuses; a reply to Marshall Hall. London and Edinb. Mo. J. M. Sci., 4: 238–239.Google Scholar
Howard, R.W. 1947. The developmental history of a group of triplets. J. Genet. Psychol. 70: 191–204.Google ScholarPubMed
Huebner, H. 1912. Die Doppelbildungen des Menschen und der Tiere. Ergebn. allg. pathol. Anat. Mensch. Tiere, 15-11: 1–346 and 922–926.Google Scholar
Hueter, C.C. 1845. Der einfache Mutterkuchen der Zwillinge, Leipzig: Elwert.Google Scholar
Hunter, W. 1774. The Anatomy of the Human Gravid Uterus Exhibited in Figures. London: Baker and Leigh.Google Scholar
Huxley, J.S., De Beer, G.R. 1934. The Elements of Experimental Embryology. Cambridge: Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Hyrtl, J. 1870. Die Blutgefaesse der menschlichen Nachgeburt in normalen und abnormen Verhaeltnissen, Wien: Braumueller.Google Scholar
Idelberger, A.-M. 1939. Zwillingsforschung. Zschr. Kinderforschung, 47: 497–511.Google Scholar
Idelberger, K. 1939. Zur Frage der anlagemaessigen Entstehung des angeborenen Klumpfusses und seiner Beziehung zu intellektuellen Stoerungen (Untersuchungen an einer unausgelesenen Zwillingsserie von 251 Paaren). Arch. Rassenb., 33: 304–333.Google Scholar
Ignatiev, M.V. 1936. On the mathematical interpretation of twin correlations. Proc. Gorky Medico-Genet. Inst., Vol. 4. Moscow: Biomedgiz.Google Scholar
Ingelranz, P., Vanlerenberghe, J., Lachteretz, M. 1950. Maladie de Little chez deux jumeaux monozygotes. Rev. Orthop., 36: 320–321.Google Scholar
Jablonski, W. 1922. Ein Beitrag zur Vererbung die Refraktion menschlicher Augen. Arch. Augenheilkunde, 91: 308–328.Google Scholar
Jaubert, J.L., LeBarazer, E. 1948. Grossesse gémellaire, univitelline, monoamniotique; hydramnios aigu au septième mois, un fétus anancéphale, un fétus mylacéphale. J. Méd. Bordeaux, 125: 465–466.Google Scholar
Jenkins, R.L. 1935. Dissimilar identical twins; results of brain injuries at birth. Am. J. Orthopsychiat., 5: 39–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, R.L., Glickman, E. 1934. Cerebral injury at birth to one of identical twins. Am. J. Dis. Child., 48: 130–133.Google Scholar
Jennings, D. 1937. Identical twins., Lancet 2: 655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, H.S. 1935. Genetics, N.Y.: Norton. (The discussion in chapter 10, pages 255–265, reflects the relatively slight attention which biologists interested in lateral inversions have given to any other factors as likely causes of differences in monozygotic pairs).Google Scholar
Jeune, M., Confavreux, J. 1948. Une paire de jumeaux monoamniotiques en miroir (situs inversus et maladie bleue chez l'un d'eux). Arch. Franc. Pédiat., 5: 252–6.Google Scholar
Johnson, W.T. 1946. Unusual variation in identical twins and its etiology. Dent. Rec, Lond. 66: 307–310.Google ScholarPubMed
Jones, H.E., Wilson, P.T. — See Wilson and Jones.Google Scholar
Jones, S.H., Younghusband, O.Z., Evans, J.A. 1948. Human parabiotic pygopagus twins with hypertension; report of a case with clinical, psychologic and endocrinologie observations. J. Am. M. Ass., 138: 642–645. (The authors allude to fusion of dizygotic twin embryos to explain this pair's differences, most of which were probably due to imbalance in the mutual circulation).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, H., Sontag, L.W. 1944. The genetic factor in autonomic nervous system function. Psychosomat. M. 6: 308–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juda, A. 1939. Neue psychiatrisch-genealogische Untersuchungen an Hilfschulzwillingen und ihren Familien. I. Die Zwillingsprobanden und ihre Partner. Zschr. ges. Neur. Psychiat. 166: 365–452. (In working up the material of this remarkable investigation the author introduced categories (e.g. for “endogenous” vs. ‘exogenous” causation) which seem arbitrary at best, and the reasoning is often involved. However, most of the basic material is given in full and warrants further study).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juda, A. 1940. Neue psychiatrisch- … (u.s.w.) II. Die Kollaterallen. III. Aszendenz und Deszendenz. Zschr. ges. Neur. Psychiat. 168: 488–491 and 804–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judge, D.J., Rice, E.C., Scalessa, C.F. 1949. Streptococcus meningitis in the newborn with report of cases in identical twins. Clin. Proc. Child. Hosp. Wash., 5: 43–47.Google ScholarPubMed
Kabakoff, I.B., Ryvkin, I.A. 1934. An investigation of the electrocardiagram in twins. II. The role of heredity and environment in the variability of the electrocardiogram. Proc. Gorky Medico-Biol. Inst., Vol. 3. Moscow: Biomedgiz.Google Scholar
Kadjar, M.K. 1927. Contribution à l'étude de la circulation placentaire dans la grossesse multiple par la méthode stéréoradiographique. Gynécologie, 26: 449–467.Google Scholar
Kahler, O.H., Weber, R. 1940. Zur Erbpathologie von Herz und Kreislauferkrankungen; Untersuchungen an einer auslesefrein Zwillingsserie. Zschr. klin. Med., 137: 380–417 and 508–575.Google Scholar
Kallmann, F.J. 1941. The scientific goal in the prevention of hereditary mental disease and racial inferiority. Proc. Seventh (1939) Internat. Genetical Cong.; supplementary vol. of J. Genet.Google Scholar
Kallmann, F.J. 1946. The genetic theory of schizophrenia; an analysis of 691 schizophrenic twin index cases. Am. J. Psychiat. 103: 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallmann, F.J. 1950. The genetics of psychoses; an analysis of 1,232 twin index families. Congrès International de Psychiatrie. No. 6: 1–40. Paris: Hermann & Cie.Google Scholar
Kallmann, F.J., Anastasio, M.M. 1947. Twin studies in the psychopathology of suicide. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 105: 40–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallmann, F.J., Barrera, S.E. 1942. The heredoconstitutional mechanisms of predisposition and resistance to schizophrenia. Am. J. Psychiat., 98: 544–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallmann, F.J., Barrera, S.E., Hoch, P.H., Kelley, D.M. 1941. The role of mental deficiency in the incidence of schizophrenia. Am. J. Ment. Defic, 45: 514–539.Google Scholar
Kallmann, F.J., Reisner, D. 1943 a. Twin studies on genetic variations in resistance to tuberculosis. III. Statistical data on reinfection tuberculosis. J. Hered., 34: 293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallmann, F.J., Reisner, D. 1943 b. Twin studies on the significances of genetic factors in tuberculosis. Am. Rev. Tuberc. 47: 549–574.Google Scholar
Kallmann, F.J., Sander, G. 1948. Twin studies on ageing and longevity. J. Hered., 39: 349–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallmann, F.J., Sander, G. 1949. Twin studies on senescence. Am. J. Psychiat., 106: 29–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kampmeier, O.F. 1929. On the problem of “parthenogenesis” in the mammalian ovary. Am. J. Anat., 43: 45–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasanin, J. 1934. A case of schizophrenia in only one of identical twins. Am. J. Psychiat., 91: 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeler, C.E. 1929. On the amount of external mirror-imagery in double monsters and identical twins. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 15: 839–842.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kellet, C.E. 1933. On the occurrence of sex-linked variations in twins. Arch. Dis. Child., 8: 279–290. (Author's belief that these infants were dizygotic twins hardly seems a more likely explanation of the intrapair difference than possible after-effects, of the mutual circulation).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, M. 1936. Temperamental differences in twins-Brit. J. Psychol, 27: 47–59.Google Scholar
Kiffner, R. 1929. Stereoroentgenbefunde an Zwillings-placenten. Arch. Gynaek., 136: 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
.Kindred, J.E. 1944. Twin pregnancies with one twin blighted. Am. J. Obst. 48: 642–682. (See also Mills 1949).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, P. 1927. Zur Frage der Diagnose der Eineiigkeit bei Zwillingsschwangerschaft. Arch. Gyn., 130: 788–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinwaechter, L. 1871. Die Lehre von den Zwillingen. Prag: Haerpfer.Google Scholar
Knauer, A. 1939. Ergebnisse der Zwillingsprobe bei Syringomyelie. Zschr. ges. Neur. Psychiat., 165: 436–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, H.L. 1927. Some measurements of a pair of Siamese twins. J. Comp. Psycol., 7: 313–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koehn, W. 1933. Psychologische Untersuchungen an Zwillingen und Geschwistern ueber die Verebung der Kombinationsfaehigkeit. Arch. ges. Psychol., 88: 131–200.Google Scholar
Koehn, W. 1935. Die Vererbung des Charakters; Studien an Zwillingen. Arch. Rassenb. 29: 1–26.Google Scholar
Komai, T., Fukuoka, G. 1931. A set of dichorionic identical triplets. J. Hered., 22: 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komai, T., Fukuoka, G. 1934. Postnatal growth disparity in monozygotic twins. J. Hered., 25: 423–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korkhaus, G. 1929. Die erste Dentition und der Zahnwechsel in Lichte der Zwillingsforschung. Fierteljschr. Zahnheilk., 45: 414–430.Google Scholar
Kranz, H. 1936. Lebensschicksale krimineller Zwillinge. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuestner, O. 1883. Ueber Hydramnion bei eineiigen Zwillingen. Arch. Gynaek., 21: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhlmann, K. 1933. Psychologisch-anthropologische Untersuchungen an Zwillingen. Ilmenau: Reiter. (Includes data on MZ pairs showing correspondence between somatic and psychological similarities is not marked).Google Scholar
Laignel-Levastine, Papillault 1929. Différences morphologiques, physiologiques et psychiques de deux jumeaux univitellines lieés à un variacocèle survenue à 10 ans chez l'un d'eux. Schweiz. Arch. Neur. 24: 100–104.Google Scholar
Landauer, W. 1941. Teratological correlations and the mechanism of gene expression. Proc. Seventh (1939) Internat. Genetical Cong.; supplementary vol. of J. Genet. (Landauer here considers that, in addition to specific environmental factors which change growth at specific stages, there might also be some fairly general growth-retarding factors which act on the embryo as a whole and cause relatively “drastic deviations”).Google Scholar
Landauer, W. 1947. Insulin-induced abnormalities of beak, extremities and eyes of chickens. J. Exp. Zool., 105: 145–172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landauer, W. 1948. The phenotypic modification of hereditary polydactylism of fowl by selection and by insulin. Genetics, 33: 133–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lange, J. 1928. Ueber Anlage und Umwelt; Zwillingsbiologische Betrachtung. Zschr. Kinderforsch., 34: 377–390.Google Scholar
Lange, J. 1931. Crime as Destiny. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Lasch, W. 1925. Zur Konstitutionspathologie der “angeborenen Pylorusstenose”. Muench. med. Wschr., 72: 1155–1156.Google Scholar
Lasker, G.W. 1947. Penetrance estimated by the frequency of unilateral occurrences and by discordance in monozygotic twins. Human Biol. 19: 217–230.Google Scholar
Lasker, G.W. Reynolds, H.H. 1948. A cicatrix of the neck associated with anomalous dental occlusion in one of a pair of monozygous twins. Human Biol., 20: 36–46.Google ScholarPubMed
Lassen, M.-T. 1931 a. Nachgeburtsbefunde bei Zwillingen und Aehnlichkeitsdiagnose. II. Arch. Gynaek., 147: 48–64. (See Curtius, Steiner).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassen, M.-T. 1931 b. Zur Frage der Vererbung “sozialer und sittlicher Charakteranlagen” (auf Grund von Fragevoegen ueber Zwillinge). Arch. Rassenbiol., 25: 269–278.Google Scholar
Lauterbach, C.E. 1925. Studies in twin resemblance. Genetics, 10: 525–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Gras, A.M. 1932. Psychose en Kriminaliteit bij Tweelingen. Utrecht: Kemink and Son.Google Scholar
Le Gras, A.M. 1933. Psychose und Kriminalitaet bei Zwillingen. Zschr. ges. Neur. Psychiat., 144: 198–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, F.E., Huber, W. 1944. Beobachtung von Tubifex ueber die Bildung von Doppeleiern bei der zweiten Reifungsteilung und die Frage der Entstehung ovozytaerer Zwillinge. Arch. Jul. Klaus Stift., 19: 473–476.Google Scholar
Lehmann, W. 1937. Diskordantes Auftreten einer schweren Kyphoskoliose bei einem eineiigen Zwillingspaar. Zschr. menschl. Vererb., 20: 237–245.Google Scholar
Lehtovaara, A. 1938. Psychologische Zwillingsuntersuchungen. Helsinki: Suom. Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Lemser, H. 1941. Ypophysen Tumor und Zwillingsdiagnose. Proc. Seventh (1939) Internat. Genetical Cong.; supplementary vol. J. Genet.Google Scholar
Lennox, W.G., Collins, A.L. 1945. Intelligence of normal and epileptic twins. Am. J. Psychiat., 101: 764–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lennox, W.G., Gibbs, E.L. 1945. The brainwave pattern, an hereditary trait; evidence from 74 “normal” pairs of twins. J. Hered., 36: 233–243.Google Scholar
Lenz, F. 1932. Zur genetischen Deutung von Zwillingsbefunden. Zschr. indukt. Abstamm., 62: 153–159.Google Scholar
Lenz, F. 1933. Zur Frage der Ursachen von Zwillingsgeburten. Arch. Rassenb., 27: 294–318.Google Scholar
Lenz, F. 1935. Inwieweit kann man aus Zwillingsbefunden auf Erbbedingtheit oder Umwelteinfluss schliessen? Deut. med. Wschr., 61-1: 873–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenz, F. 1936. Some remarks on the twin method in the study of human heredity. Research and Progress, 2: 175–178.Google Scholar
Lenz, F. 1948. Ueber die Relativitaet des Begriffs “erblich” in der menschlichen Erbforschung. Grenzgebiete Med., 1: 135–141.Google Scholar
Lenz, F. 1950. Zur Geschichte der Zwillingsmethode. Zschr. menschl. Vererb., 29: 820–824. (See also Thorndike 1905, Le Gras 1932, and Waarden-burg 1947, for further comments on the puzzling question of just what Galton believed concerning the types of twins).Google Scholar
Leven, L. 1924. Zur methodologischen Bedeutung der Zwillingspathologie. Muench. med. Wschr., 71: 837. (See also pages 11-12, 404, and 590-591).Google Scholar
Levit, S.G., Soboleva, G.V. 1935. Comparative intrapair correlations of fraternal twins and siblings. J. Genetics, 30: 389–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levret, A. 1766. L'Art des Accouchemens Demontre par des Principes de Physique et de Méchanique. Paris: D'Houry.Google Scholar
Lewis, A.J. 1934. Acromegaly in one of uniovular twins. J. Neur. Psychopath., Lond. 15: 1–11.Google ScholarPubMed
Lewis, F.L.K. 1944. Pyloric stenosis in identical twins. Brit. M.J. (1944 vol.): 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ley, J. 1929. Un cas d'audimutité idiopathique (aphasie congenitale) chez des jumeaux monozygotiques. Encéphale, 24: 121–165.Google Scholar
Liebenam, L. 1938. Zwillingspathologische Untersuchungen aus dem Gebiet der Anomalien der Koerperform. A: Partieller Riesenwuchs. B: Angeborener Pectoralisdefekt. Zschr. menschl. Vererb., 22: 373–417.Google Scholar
Lillie, F.R. 1917. The free-martin; a study of the action of sex hormones in the fetal life of cattle. J. Exp. Zool., 23: 371–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillie, F.R. 1923. Supplementary notes on twins in cattle. Biol. Bull., 44: 47–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lisch, K., Thums, K. 1937. Diskordantes Vorkommen von Mikrophagie mit Schichtstar und Littlescher Krankheit bei einem eineiigen Zwillingspaar mit Zeichen des Status dysraphicus. Zschr. menschl. Vererb., 21: 220–235.Google Scholar
Litt, S., Strauss, H. 1930. Monoamniotic twins, one normal, the other anencephalic; multiple true knots in the cords. Am. J. Obst. 30: 728–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, S.C., Weaver, N.K. 1950. Epilepsy in twins. An analysis of five twin pairs with electro-ence-phalographic studies. Am. J. Dis. Child., 79: 223–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Littre, E. 1853. Oeuvres Completes d'Hippocrate (Tome VIII). Paris: Bailliére.Google Scholar
Luisa, C.B. 1949. Consideraciones acerca de un parto gemelar con enfermedad hemolitica fetal. Medicina, Madr., 17: 169–179.Google Scholar
Lottig, H. 1931. Hamburger Zwillingstudien. Anthropologische und charakterologische Untersuchungen an ein- und zweieiigen Zwillingen. Zschr. ang. Psychol. Beih. 61. (122 pages).Google Scholar
Lotze, R. 1937. Zwillinge; Einfuehrung in die Zwillingsforschung. Oehringen: Ferd. Rau.Google Scholar
Luchsinger, R. 1944. Erbbiologische Untersuchungen an ein- und zweieiigen Zwillingen in Beziehung zur Groesse und Form des Kehlkopfes. Arch. Julius Klaus Stift., 19: 393–441.Google Scholar
Luchsinger, R., Hanhart, E. 1949. Ueber erhebliche Manifestationsschwankungen rezessiver Taubheit bei drei eineiigen Zwillingspaaren. Arch. Julius Klaus Stift., 24: 417–436.Google Scholar
Ludwig, E. 1927. Ueber die Verteilung der Erbmasse unter eineiige Zwillinge. Schweiz, med. Wschr., 57: 1041–1042.Google Scholar
Lueneberg, H. (Transl.) 1894. Soranus of Ephesus. Die Gynaekologie, Geburtshilfe, Frauen- und Kinder-Krankheiten, Diataetik der Neugeborenen. Muenchen: Lehrmann.Google Scholar
Lueth, K.F. 1937. Endokrine Stoerungen bei eineiigen Zwillingen. Zschr. menschl. Vererb., 21: 55–67.Google Scholar
Lundstroem, A. 1948. Tooth Size and Occlusion in Twins. New York: S. Karger.Google Scholar
Lundstroem, A. 1949. An investigation of 202 pairs of twins regarding fundamental factors in the etiology of malocclusion. Dent. Ree, 69: 251–264. (Author notes this is a “concentrated report” of his 1948 monograph).Google Scholar
Lustig, B. 1950. Zur Identitaet von Zwillingsdepression. Nervenarzt, 21: 440–442.Google Scholar
Luxenberger, H. 1930. Psychiatrisch-neurologische Zwillingspathologie. Zbl. ges. Neur. Psychiat., 56: 145–180.Google Scholar
Luxenberger, H. 1932. Leistungen und Aussichten der menschlichen Mehrlingsforschung fuer die Medizin. Zschr. indukt. Abstamm., 61: 223–260.Google Scholar
Luxenberger, H. 1940. Statistik und psychiatrische Erbforschung. In Burgdoerfer, F. (Ed.): Die Statistik in Deutschland (Bd. I). Berlin: F. Zahn.Google Scholar
Macarthur, J.W. 1938. Genetics of quintuplets. I. Diagnosis of the Dionne quintuplets as a monozygotic set. J. Hered., 29: 323–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macarthur, J.W., Dafoe, A.R. 1939. Genetics of quintuplets. II. Trends of growth in the Dionne quintuplets. J. Hered., 30: 359–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macklin, M.T. 1936. Heredity as the cause of congenital malformations. Am. J. Obst., 32: 258–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macklin, M.T. 1940. Analysis of tumors in monozy-gous and dizygous twins recorded in the literature together with a report of 19 unpublished cases. J. Hered., 31: 277–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macklin, M.T. 1941. Tumors in monozygous and dizygous twins; a report of 19 cases. Canad. M. Ass. J., 44: 604–606.Google Scholar
Marchand, F. 1897. Missbildungen; die Doppelbildungen (monstra duplicia). In: Eulenburg, A.: Real-Encyclopedie der gesammten Heilkunde (Bd. 15). Leipzig: Urban and Schwarzenberg.Google Scholar
Margolis, H.M., Eisenstein, V. 1933. Twins as biologic controls in a study of human constitution; an additional approach to the study of clinical medicine. Ann. Int. M., 6: 1489–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClintock, K. 1945. Congenital malformation of the heart in one of identical twins. Arch. Dis. Child., Lond. 20: 47–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNemar, Q. 1933. Twin resemblances in motor skills and the effect of practice thereon. J. Genet. Psychol., 42: 70–97.Google Scholar
McNemar, Q. 1938. Special review of Newman, Freeman, and Holzinger's “Twins”. Psychol. Bull., 35: 235–237. 35: 436–444 (Holzinger's reply). 35: 522–524 (McNemar's rejoinder).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meckel, H. 1850. Ueber die Verhaeltnisse des Geschlechts, der Lebensfaehigkeit und der Eihaeute bei einfachen und Mehrgeburten. Muellers Arch. Anat. Physiol., 3: 235–272.Google Scholar
Meckel, J.F. 1812. Ueber die Zwitterbildungen. Reils Arch. Physiol., 11: 263–340.Google Scholar
Meckel, J.F. 1815. De Duplicitate Monstrosa Com-mentarius. Halle: Lib. Orphanotrophel.Google Scholar
Meirowsky, E. 1926. Zwillingsbiologische Untersuchungen mit besonderer Beruecksichtigung der Frage der Aetiologie der Muttermaeler. Arch. Rass. Gesell. Biol., 18: 270–296.Google Scholar
Melsom, R. 1945. Dermatological investigations on 22 pairs of identical twins. Acta Derm. Vener., Stockh. 25: 29–47.Google Scholar
Menninger, W.C. 1934. The psychological picture of a case of Laurence-Moon-Biedl syndrome. Endocrinology, 18: 583–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriman, C. 1924. The intellectual resemblance of twins. Psychol. Monogr., 33: No. 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mery, J. 1720. Observations faites sur un fétus humain monstrueux. Hist. Acad. Roy. Sci., 2: 8–14.Google Scholar
Meumann, I. 1935. Testpsychologie Untersuchungen an ein- und zweieiigen Zwillingen. Arch. ges. Psychol., 93: 42–81.Google Scholar
Mills, W.G. 1949. Pathological changes in blighted twins. J. Obst. Gyn. Brit. Emp. 56: 619–624. (Includes an important critique of Kindred's 1944 paper).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Misbach, L., Stromberg, R.N. 1941. Non-separation as a source of dissimilarities between monozygotic twins; a case report. J. Genet. Psychol., 59: 249–256.Google Scholar
Monro, A. 1792. Description of a human male monster. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb., 3: 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montagu, M.F.A. 1944. Heredity and environment in twins. In Glasser, O. (Ed.): Medical Physics. Chicago: Year Book Pub. (Author's attack on what he calls “biologistic bias” among students of twins seems to lack some logic and fairness).Google Scholar
Moore, C.R. 1947. Embryonic Sex Hormones and Sexual Differentiation. Springfield, Ill.: C.C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Moreau, J. 1859. La Psychologie Morbide dans ses Rapports avec la Philosophie de l'Histoire ou de l'Influence des Nevropathies sur le Dynamism Intellectuel. Paris: Librairie V. Masson.Google Scholar
Morgan, T.H. 1934. Embryology and Genetics. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morikawa, N. 1939. Morphologische Untersuchung der Leber. Okajimas Fol. Anat., Jap. 18: 1–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morison, J.E. 1949. Congenital malformations in one of monozygotic twins. Arch. Dis. Child., Lond. 119: 214–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrill, C.V. 1919. Symmetry reversal and mirror-imaging in monstrous trout and a comparison with similar conditions in human double monsters. Anat. Rec., 16: 265–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morsier, G. de, Rey, A. 1944. Modifications du phénotype par un traumatisme cérébral chez une jumelle univitelline. Arch. Jul. Klaus Stift., 19: 463–468.Google Scholar
Muller, H.J. 1925. Mental traits and heredity; the extent to which mental traits are independent of heredity, as tested in a case of identical twins reared apart. J. Hered., 16: 432–448.Google Scholar
Muller, H.J. 1947. Genetic fundamentals; the work of the genes. In Muller, H.J., Little, C.C., Snyder, L.H.: Genetics, Medicine, and Man., Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Murray, G.R. 1925. A study of twins in health and disease. Lancet, 1: 529–532.Google Scholar
Mutel, M., Vermelin, H. 1922. Contribution à l'étude de la circulation fétoplacentaire dans les gémellaires uniovulaires. Gynec. Obst., Par. 5: 294–306. (See also in 1928, Vol. 18: 217).Google Scholar
Nehls, G. 1940. Caries und Paradentose bei Zwillingen. Zschr. menschl. Vererb., 24: 235–247.Google Scholar
Nettleship, E. 1912. Some unusual pedigrees of colorblindness. Trans. Ophth. Soc. U.K., 32: 309–336.Google Scholar
Newcomb, S. 1904. A statistical inquiry into the probality of causes of the production of sex in human offspring. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Public. No. 11.Google Scholar
Newell, H.W. 1930. Differences in personalities in the surviving pair of identical triplets. Am. J. Orthopsychiat., 1: 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, H.H. 1915. Heredity and organic symmetry in armadillo quadruplets. I. Modes of inheritance of band anomalies. Biol. Bull., 29: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, H.H. 1916. Heredity and organic symmetry in armadillo quadruplets. II. Mode of inheritance of double scutes and a discussion of organic symmetry. Biol. Bull., 30: 173–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, H.H. 1917. The Biology of Twins. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Newman, H.H. 1921 a. The experimental production of twins and double monsters in the larvae of the starfish Patiria miniata. J. Exp. Zool., 33: 321–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, H.H. 1921 a. On the development of the spontaneously parthenogenetic eggs of Asteria (Patiria) miniata. Biol. Bull., 40: 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, H.H. 1922. Twins and the relative potency of heredity and environment in development. Am. Sociol. Soc. Public, 17: 51–61.Google Scholar
Newman, H.H. 1923. The Physiology of Twinning. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Newman, H.H. 1928. Studies of human twins. II. Asymmetry reversal or mirror-imaging in identical twins. Biol. Bull., 55: 298–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, H.H. 1931 a. Palm-print patterns in twins; on the use of dermatoglyphics as an aid in the diagnosis of monozygoic and dizygotic twins. J. Hered., 22: 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, H.H. 19316. Differences between conjoined twins in relation to a general theory of twinning. J. Hered., 22: 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, H.H. 1934. Brief reply to Reichle's article. J. Hered., 25: 37–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, H.H. 1940 a. The question of mirror-imaging in human one-egg twins. Human Biol., 12: 21–34.Google Scholar
Newman, H.H. 19406. Multiple Human Births. New York: Doubleday Doran.Google Scholar
Newman, H.H. 1941. Aspects of twin research. Sc. Month., 52: 99–112.Google Scholar
Newman, H.H., Freeman, F.N., Holzinger, K.J. 1937. Twins. A study of Heredity and Environment. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Newman, H.H., Patterson, J.T. 1911. The limits of hereditary control in armadillo quadruplers; a study of blastogenic variation. J. Morph., 22: 855–926. (See also 1910, Vol. 21).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, H.H., Quisenberry, W.B. 1944. One-egg twins with spina bifida and Polydactyly. J. Hered., 35: 309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norinder, Y. 1946. Twin Differences in Writing-Performance. A study of Heredity and School Training. Lund: H. Ohlssons. (Includes, pages 1–64, a valuable review of psychological studies of twins).Google Scholar
Numan, A. 1844. Mémoire sur les vaches stériles, connues sou le nom d'hermaphrodites, comparées à d'autres animaux portant des vices de conformation de l'appareil sexuel. J. Vet. Agrie Belgique, 3: 75–91, 115–134, and 155–182.Google Scholar
Oestlyngen, E. 1945. Ueber erbliche und umweltliche Bedingtheit der Variabilitaet von Handschriften; eine Studie ueber Zwillingsschriften. Acta Psychiat., 20: 75–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oldag, 1920. Schatz. Mschr. Geburtsh. Gynaek., 52: 268–270.Google Scholar
Orel, H. 1929. Laengen- und Massen Wachstum von Zwillingen; kleine Beitraege zur Vererbungswissenschaft. Zschr. Kinderh., 48: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostertag, M., Spaich, D. 1936. Diskordantes Auftreten einer isolierten kongenitalen Dextrokardie bei einem eineiigen Zwillingspaar. Zschr. menschl. Vererb., 19: 577–584.Google Scholar
Owen, R.D. 1945. Immunogenetic consequences of vascular anastomoses between bovine twins. Science, 102: 400–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parpart, A.K. (Ed.) 1946. Chemistry and physiology of growth; Summary. Princeton Univ. Bicent. Conf., Series I, Conf. 2.Google Scholar
Paterson, J.H. 1949. Hysteria in one of a pair of identical twins. J. Neur. Psychiat., Lond. 12: 160–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearson, K. 1924. The Life, Letters and Labours of Francis Galton. II. Researches of Middle Life. Cambridge: Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Penrose, L.S. 1937. Congenital syphilis in a monovular twin. Lancet, 1: 322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez, M.L., Firpo, J.R., Baldi, E.M. 1947. Sobre les anastomosis circulatorias de las placentas dizígóticas. Obst. Gyn. Latin-Am., 5: 5–22.Google Scholar
Perlstein, M.A., Lecount, E.R. 1927. Pygopagus twins; the history and necropsy report of the twins Rosa-Josepha Blazek. Arch. Path., Chic. 3: 171–192.Google Scholar
Petoe, E. 1946. The psycho-analysis of identical twins, with reference to inheritance. Internat. J. Psychoanal., Lond. 27: 126–129.Google Scholar
Pfister, A. 1937. Beobachtungen an eineiigen Zwillingspaaren. Arch. Jul. Klaus Stift., 12: 587–629.Google Scholar
Poll, H. 1914. Ueber Zwillingsforschung als Hilfsmittel menschlicher Erbkunde. Zschr. Ethnol., 46: 87–105.Google Scholar
Popenoe, P. 1922. Twins reared apart. J. Hered. 13: 142–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porak, C. 1900. Sur un monstre thoraco-xiphopage. Bull. Acad. Méd., Paris. 44: 334–370 (See page 354 ff.).Google Scholar
Portal, P. 1685. La Practique des Accouchemens Soutenue d'un Grand Nombre d'Observations. Paris: G. Martin.Google Scholar
Potter, E.L., Fuller, H. 1949. Multiple pregnancies at the Chicago Lying-in Hospital, 1941 to 1947. Am. J. Obst., 58: 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, B. 1949. Toward reducing ambiguities in twin studies. Proc. Eighth (1948) Internat. Cong. Genetics. Hereditas 35 (Supp.): 643–644.Google Scholar
Prochownik, 1920. Friedrich Schatz. Arch. Gynaek., 113: v–xviii.Google Scholar
Pusey, W.A., Ratner, H. 1934. Acne in one of identical twins. Arch. Derm. Syph., Chic. 29: 706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quick, A.J., Conway, J.P. 1949. Hemophilia in twins. Am. J. Med., 7: 841–843.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quigley, J.K. 1935. Monoamniotic twin pregnancy; a case record with review of the literature. Am. J. Obst., 29: 354–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quisenberry, W.B. 1944. Spina bifida and Polydactyly in one-egg twins. Virginia M. Month., 71: 309–311.Google Scholar
Reed, G.E. 1935. Uniovular twins; schizophrenia and tuberculosis. Canad. M. Ass. J., 32: 180–182.Google ScholarPubMed
Reichle, H.S. 1929 a. The diagnosis of the type of twinning. I. Dermatoglyphics. Biol. Bull., 56: 164–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichle, H.S. 1929 b. The diagnosis of mono-ovular twinning. II. Clinical aspects. Biol. Bull., 56: 313–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichle, H.S. 1934. The diagnosis of monozygotic twinning. J. Hered., 25: 33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhard, W.E. 1948. Ueber diskordantes Auftreten des angeborenen Kumpfusses bei eineiigen Zwillingen. Deut. med. Rschau., 2: 130–132.Google Scholar
Renssen, W. 1942. A case of discordant ptosis in monozygotic twins. Genetica, Gravenh. 23: 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rexroad, C.N. 1932 Recent studies of twin resemblance. Psycol. Bull., 29: 204–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, E.L., Schoen, G. 1947. Growth patterns of identical triplets from 8 through 18 years. Child Developm., 18: 130–151. (Summarizes measurements taken on the Kramer set).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riddle, O. 1923. On the cause of twinning and abnormal development in birds. Am. J. Anat., 32: 199–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rife, D.C. 1933 a. Genetic studies of monozygotic twins. I. A diagnostic formula. J. Hered., 29: 339–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rife, D.C. 1933 a. Genetic studies of monozygotic twins. II. Finger-patterns and eye color as criteria of monozygosity. J. Hered., 24: 407–414.Google Scholar
Rife, D.C. 1933 c. Genetic studies of monozygotic twins. III. Mirrorimaging. J. Hered., 24: 443–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rife, D.C. 1935. Twin differences in intelligence. J. Educ. Psychol., 26: 709–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rife, D.C. 1938 a. Contributions of the 1937 National Twins' Convention to research. J. Hered., 29: 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rife, D.C. 1938 b. Simple modes of inheritance and the study of twins. Ohio J. Sci., 38: 281–293.Google Scholar
Rife, D.C. 1939. The study of twins. Sc. Month., 47: 238–245. (Author considers that monozygotic pairs showing reversed handedness are genoty-pically ambidextrous, and that the handedness of such individual twins has been affected by intrauterine position).Google Scholar
Rife, D.C. 1940. Handedness, with special reference to twins. Genetics, 25: 178–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rife, D.C. 1941. Heredity and twins. Sci. Mo., 53: 148–154.Google Scholar
Rife, D.C. 1943. Genetic interrelationships of dermatoglyphics and functional handedness. Genetics, 28: 41–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rife, D.C. 1950. An application of gene frequency analysis to the interpretation of data from twins. Human Biol., 22: 136–145.Google Scholar
Rife, D.C., Cummins, H. 1943. Dermatoglyphics and “mirror-imaging”. Human Biol., 15: 54–64. (Authors hold that “conditions in utero… have no effect on bilateral asymmetries of dermatoglyphics”).Google Scholar
Rife, D.C., Price, B., Snyder, L.H. 1938. Twin light on nature versus nurture; review of “Twins” by Newman, Freeman, and Holzinger. J. Hered., 29: 21–26. (The expression gamma = 2ir — fr on page 25 was misprinted; it should read gamma = 2(ir — fr).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J.A.F. 1935. Twins. Eugen. Rev., Lond. 27: 25–32.Google ScholarPubMed
Roberts, J.A.F. 1947. High grade mental deficiency in relation to differential fertility. J. Ment. Sci., Lond. 93: 289–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, E.C., Tatham, C.M., Walker, N., Ford., Weaver M.R. 1947. The effect of added thiamine on growth, vision, and learning, using identical twins. J. Nutrit., 34: 691–700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romanus, T. 1947. Psoriasis in twins. Hereditas, 33: 297–300.Google Scholar
Rosanoff, A.J. 1935. Some clinical manifestations of traumatic decerebration. Psychiat. Quart., 9: 116–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosanoff, A.J., Handy, L.M., Rosanoff, I.A. 1934. The etiology of epilepsy with special reference to its occurrence in twins. Arch. Neur. Psychiat., Chic. 31: 1165–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosanoff, A.J., Handy, L.M., Plesset, I.R. 1937. The etiology of mental deficiency with special reference to its occurrence in twins; a chapter in the genetic history of human intelligence. Psychol. Monog., 48: Whole No. 216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosanoff, A.J., Handy, L.M., Plesset, I.R. 1941. The Etiology of Child Behavior Difficulties, Juvenile Delinquency and Adult Criminality with Special Reference to their Occurrence in Twins. Sacramento: Calif. State Dept. of Institutions.Google Scholar
Roux, W. 1888. Beitraegezur Entwickelungsmechanik des Embryo. Virchows Arch., 114: 113–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rush, B. 1812. Medical Inquiries and Observations upon the Diseases of the Mind. Philadelphia: Kimber and Richardson. (Rush, pages 48–51, was the first to publish a report on monozygotic twins who both suicided, and to generalize concerning the “hereditary sameness of organization of the nerves, brain, and blood vessels on which… the predisposition to madness depends”).Google Scholar
Sanders, J. 1934. Homosexuelle Zwillingen. Genetica, 16: 401–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sangvichien, S. 1937. A thoracophagus, one with harelip and cleft palate. Anat. Rec., 67: 157–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scammon, R.E. 1925. Fetal malformations. In Abt, I. A. (Ed.): Pediatrics (Vol. 6). Philadelphia: Saunders. (Schatz's views on acardii were dismissed by Scammon, who felt “general primary perversion of development” was a satisfactory explanation of such cases).Google Scholar
Schachter, M. 1947. Vitiligo généralisé chez un jumeau univitellin. Syndrome diéncephalo-pitui-taire probable. Profil neuropsychologique. Ann. Pediat., Basel. 179: 337–344.Google Scholar
Schachter, M. 1950. Régression affective et psychomotrice chez des jumelles univitellines; rôle des facteurs mésologiques. Arch. Internat. Neur., 69: 170–173.Google Scholar
Schaper, G. 1950. Diskordantes Auftreten spastischer Pylorusstenose bei eineiigen Zwillingen. Kindei-raertzl. Prax., 18: 244–246.Google Scholar
Schatz, F. 1868. Der Geburtsmechanismus der Kopfendlagen nach zum grossen Theil neuen Anschauungen dargestellt. Leipzig: Wigand.Google Scholar
Schatz, F. 1875. Zur Frage ueber die Quelle des Fruchtwassers und ueber Embryones papyracei. Arch. Gynaek., 7: 336–338.Google Scholar
Schatz, F. 1882. Eine besondere Art von einseitiger Polyhydramnie mit anderseitiger Oligohydramnie bei eineiigen Zwillingen (Makrocardii). Arch. Gynaek., 19: 329–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatz, F. 1884. Die Gefaessverbindungen der Pla-centakreislaeufe eineiiger Zwillinge, ihre Entwicklung und ihre Folgen. I. Die Gefaessverbindungen an der ausgebildeten Placenta. Arch. Gynaek., 24: 337–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatz, F. 1885. Die Gefaessverbindungen der Pla-centakreislaeufe eineiiger Zwillinge, ihre Entwicklung und ihre Folgen. II. Die Entwicklung der Gefaessverbindungen und ihre Folgen; A. Die Entwicklung. Arch. Gynaek., 27: 1–72.Google Scholar
Schatz, F. 1887 a. Die Gefaessverbindungen der Pla-centakreislaufe eineiiger Zwillinge, ihre Entwickln und ihre Folgen. II. Die Entwicklung der Gefaessverbindungen und ihre Folgen; B. Die Folgen. Arch. Gynaek., 29: 419–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatz, F. 1887 a. Die Gefaessverbindungen der Pla-centakreislaufe eineiiger Zwillinge, ihre Entwicklung und ihre Folgen. II. B. Die Folgen: (1) Allgemeiner Theil, (2) Specieller Theil. Arch. Gynaek., 30: 169–240 and 335–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatz, F. 1897–1900. Die Gefaessverbindungen der Placentakreislaufe eineiiger Zwillinge, ihre Entwicklung und ihre Folgen. III. Die Acardii und ihre Verwandten. Arch. Gynaek., 53: 144–182; 55: 485–615; 58: 1–82; 60: 81–146, and 201–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatz, F. 1900 a. Klinische Beitraege zur Physiologie des Foetus. Berlin: A. Hirschwald.Google Scholar
Schatz, F. 1900 b. Systematisches und alphabetisches Inhaltsverzeichniss. Arch. Gynaek., 60: 559–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatz, F. 1910 a. Nachtraege zu meinem Monograph; Die Gefaessverbindungen der Placentakreislaeufe eineiiger Zwillinge, ihre Entwicklung und ihre Folgen. Arch. Gynaek., 92: 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatz, F. 1910 a. Klinische Beitraege zur Physiologie der Schwangerschaft. Leipzig: J.A. Barth.Google Scholar
Schiff, F., Verschuer, O. von, 1931. Serologische Untersuchungen an Zwillingen. I. Klin. Wschr. 10-1: 723–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiller, M. 1936. Zwillingsprobleme, dargestellt auf Grund von Untersuchungen an Stuttgarter Zwillingen. Zschr. menschl. Vererb., 20: 284–337.Google Scholar
Schilling, R. 1950. Ueber die Stimme erbgleicher Zwillinge. Folia Phoniat., 2: 98–119. 2: 205–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schinz, H.R. 1945. Konkordanz, Diskordanz und Penetranz bei eineiigen Zwillingen (Versuch einer elementaren Darstellung). Arch. Jul. Klaus Stift., 20: 13–25.Google Scholar
Schultze, B. 1854. Ueber anomale Duplicitaet der Axenorgane. Virchows Arch., 7: 479–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultze, B. 1856. Ueber die Entstehung der Doppelmonstra. Maschr. Geburtsk. Frauenkr., 7: 247–285.Google Scholar
Schulz, B. 1939. Ueber Auslesemoeglichkeit beim Sammeln von Zwillingserien. Zschr. Psychiat. Grenzgebiete. 112: 138–147.Google Scholar
Schwalbe, E. 1907. Die Morphologie der Missbildungen des Menschen und der Tiere. II. Die Doppelbildungen. Jena: G. Fischer.Google Scholar
Scipiades, E., Burg, E. 1930. Ueber die Morphologie der menschlichen Placenta mit besonderer Ruecksicht auf unsere eigenen Studien. Arch. Gynaek., 141: 577–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segall, G. 1948. Taste-blind identical twins with diabetes and other striking characteristics. J. Hered., 39: 228–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, K.A. 1948. Twins and their medico-social importance. Ind. M. Gaz. 83: 294–297.Google ScholarPubMed
Sheldon, W. 1938. Hypertrophic pyloric stenosis in one of uniovular twins. Lancet, I: 1048–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shordania, J. 1929. Der architektonische Aufbau der Gefaessen der menschlichen Nachgeburt und ihre Beziehungen zur Entwicklung der Frucht. Arch. Gyn., 135: 568–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuttleworth, F.K. 1935. The nature versus nurture problem. J. Educ. Psychol, 26: 561–578 and 655–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuttleworth, F.K. 1938. Rosanoff, Handy, and Plesset on the etiology of mental deficiency; a critical appraisal. J. Educ. Psychol, 29: 374–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siemens, H.W. 1923. Einfuehrung in die allgemeine und spezielle Vererbungspathologie des Menschen; ein Lehrbuch fuer Studierende und Aertze. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siemens, H.W. 1924 a. Die Zwillingspathologie; ihre Bedeutung, ihre Methodik, ihre bisherigen Ergebnisse. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Siemens, H.W. 1924 b. Zur Aetiologie Turmschaedels, nebst Mitteilung einer dermatologischen Methode zur Diagnose Eineiigkeit bei Zwillingen. Virchows Arch., 253: 746–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siemens, H.W. 1925 a. Ueber die Eineiigkeitsdiagnose der Zwillinge aus den Eihaeuten und aus dem dermatologischen Befund. Zschr. indukt. Abstamm 37: 122–124.Google Scholar
Siemens, H.W. 1925 b. Die Diagnose der Eineiigkeit in geburtshilflicher und in dermatologischer Betrachtung. Arch. Gynaek., 126: 623–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siemens, H.W. 1927 a. The diagnosis of identity in twins. J. Hered., 18: 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siemens, H.W. 1927 b. Das Problem der Erbgleichheit bei eineiigen Zwillingen. Virchows Arch., 264: 323–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siemens, H.W. 1932. Die allgemeinen Ergebnisse der menschlichen Mehrlingsforschung. Zschr. indukt. Abstamm., 61: 208–222.Google Scholar
Siemens, H.W., Hunold, X. 1924. Zwillingspathologische Untersuchungen der Mundhoehle. Arch. Dermat. Syph., 147: 409–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sievers, E. 1934. Bericht aus dem Leben eines erbgleichen Zwillingspaares mit einigen bemerkenswerten psychischen Diskordanzen. Allg. Zschr. Psychiat., 102: 246–283.Google Scholar
Simpson, J.Y. 1836. Hermaphroditism. In Todd, R.B.: Cylopedia of Anatomy and Physiology (Vol. 2, pp. 684–737). London: Longman's.Google Scholar
Simpson, J.Y. 1844. On the alleged infecundity of females born co-twins with males, with some notes on the average proportion of marriages without issue in general society. Edinb. M. Surg. J., 61: 107–119.Google ScholarPubMed
Sinclair, J.G. 1949. Placentas from multiple births. Texas Rep. Biol. M., 7: 50–57.Google ScholarPubMed
Slater, E.T.O. 1938. Twin research in psychiatry; a critical review. J. Neur. Psychiat., Lond. I: 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, E. 1950. The genetical aspects of personality and neurosis. Congrès International de Psychiatrie, No. 6: 119–152. (See pages 136-140 and 142).Google Scholar
Smellie, W. 1752. A Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Midwifery. The Second Edition, Corrected. London: Wilson and Durham. (1st ed., 1751, is not extant, as only a few copies were published.).Google Scholar
Smith, G. 1947. Psychological tests with twins. Hereditas, 33: 420–421. (Author alludes to primary bias, while stressing secondary bias as both a similarity-producing and a difference-producing factor in monozygotic pairs).Google Scholar
Smith, G. 1949. Psychological studies of twin differences, with reference to afterimage and eidetic phenomena as wall as more general personality characteristics. Lund: Gleerup. (See pages 24–27.)Google Scholar
Smith, J.C. 1929. Aandssvaghendens aarsagsforhold belyst ved undersoegelser af tvillinger. Meddelelser om Danmarks Antropologi (den Antropol. Komite). 3: 83–234.Google Scholar
Smith, J.C. 1930. Das Ursachenverhaeltnis des Schwachsinns beleuchtet durch Untersuchungen von Zwillingen. Zschr. ges. Neur. Psychiat. 125: 678–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sontag, L.W., Reynolds, E.L. 1944. Ossification sequences in identical triplets; a longitudinal study. J. Hered., 35: 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, J. 1860. Studien ueber Zwillingen. Zschr. Gesell. Aerzte Wien., 3: 225–231 and 241–244. (English translation 2 years later in Edinb. M.J. 7 (II): 841-849).Google Scholar
Spaich, D., Ostertag, M. 1936. Untersuchungen ueber allergische Erkrankungen bei Zwillingen. Zschr. menschl. Vererb., 19: 731–752.Google Scholar
Spemann, H. 1938. Embryonic development and induction. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalpart van Der Wiel, C. 1687. Observationes Ra-riores Medicae Anatomicae Chirurgicae; Centuria Prior. Leyden: Petrus van der Aa.Google Scholar
Steiner, F. 1935. Nachgeburtsbefunde bei Mehrlingen und Aehnlichkeitsdiagnose. III. Arch. Gynaek., 159: 509–523. (See also Curtius; Lassen).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, F. 1936. Beobachtungen zur Basedowschen Krankheit, des Biedl-Lawrenceschen Syndrome und der Cholelithiasis. Zschr. menschl. Vererb., 20: 73–77.Google Scholar
Stern, C. 1949. Principles of Human Genetics. San Francisco: Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
Stern, C., Enders, T. 1948. The frequencies of twins relative to age of mothers in American populations. Genetics, 33: 263–272.Google Scholar
Stockard, C.R. 1921. A probable explanation of polyembryony in the armadillo. Am. Natur., 55: 62–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockard, C.R. 1921. Developmental rate and structural expression; an experimental study of twins, “double monsters”, and single deformities; and the interaction among embryonic organs during their origin and development. Am. J. Anat., 28: 115–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stocks, P. 1930. A biometric investigation of twins and their brothers and sisters. I. Ann. Eugen., 4: 49–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stocks, P., Karn, M.N. 1933. A biometric investigation of twins and their brothers and sisters. II. Ann. Eugen., 5: 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strandskov, H.H., Edelen, E.W. 1946. Monozygotic and dizygotic twin birth frequencies in the total, the “white” and the “colored” U.S. population. Genetics, 31: 438–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strassmann, P. 1904. Mehrfache Schwangerschaft. In Winckel, F. (Ed.): Handbuch der Geburtshuelfe (Bd. I). Wiesbaden: Bergmann.Google Scholar
Streeter, G.L. 1919. Formation of single-ovum twins. Bull. Johns Hopkins Hosp., 30: 235–238.Google Scholar
Streeter, G.L. 1930. Focal deficiencies in fetal tissues and their relation to introuterine amputation. Carn. Inst. Wash. Contrib. Emb. 22 (No. 126): 1–44.Google Scholar
Strupler, W. 1947. Diskordante Missbildungen bei eineiigen Zwillingen. Arch. Jul. Klaus Stift., 22: 169–220.Google Scholar
Student (Gosset, W.S.) 1931. The Lanarkshire milk experiment. Biometrika, 23: 398–406. (Includes, on page 405, the first discussion of the statistical efficiency of twin-control work).Google Scholar
Stumpfl, F. 1936 a. Die Urspruenge des Verbrechens dargestellt am Lebenslauf von Zwillingen. Leipzig: Thieme.Google Scholar
Stumpfl, F. 1936 a. Ueber Diskordanz bei psychopathischen Zwillingen. Nervenarzt, 9: 385–392.Google Scholar
Sullivan, L.R. 1919. The “Samar” united twins. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop., 2: 21–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szendi, B. 1936. Ujabb nezopontok az ikerkutatas teren. Orvosi Hetilap, 80: 389–390.Google Scholar
Szendi, B. 1938 a. Ueber die Bedeutung der Struktur der Eihaente und des Gefaessnetzes der Placenta auf Grund von 112 Zwillingsgeburten. Arch. Gynaek., 167: 108–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szendi, B. 19386. Beitraege zur intrauterin Zwillingspathologie. Arch. Gynaek., 165: 624–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szendi, B. 1939. Double monsters in the light of recent biological experiments and investigations regarding heredity; contribution to the problem of the determination of sex. J. Obst. Gynec. Brit. Emp., 46: 836–847. (This is apparently the same as the author's 1939 article in German in Arch. Gyn., 169: 59-72).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taniguchi, T. (Ed.) 1937–1940. Zwillingsanatomie; Erbbiologische Untersuchungen des Menschen, Lief I-V. Yotsuda, Tokyo: Anatomisches Institut der Keio Universitaet. (Not seen; reference kindly furnished by J.N. Spuhler who notes it is a conveniently arranged collection of reprints from Fol. anat. Jap.).Google Scholar
Targowla, R., Lamanche, A., Daussy, H. 1927. Débilité mentale, troubles du charactère et débilité motrice chez deux sœurs jumelles. Atteinte disséminée fruste du névraxe. Encéphale, 22: 487–489.Google Scholar
Thoma, R. 1896. Textbook of General Pathology and Pathological Anatomy. London: A. and C. Black. (Includes an extensive discussion of acardii).Google Scholar
Thorndike, E.L. 1905. Measurements of twins. Arch. Philos. Psychol. Sci. Meth., No. 1.Google Scholar
Thums, K. 1936. Neurologische Zwillingsstudien. I. Zur Erbpathologie der multiplen Sklerose. Untersuchungen an 51 Zwillingspaaren. Zschr. ges. Neur. Psychiat., 155: 185–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thums, K. 1937. Zwillingsuntersuchungen bei cerebraler Kinderlaehmung (Littlescher Krankheit, angeborener spastischer Hemi-, Di-, und Tétraplégie). Zschr. ges. Neur. Psychiat., 158: 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thums, K. 1939 a. Die angeborene zerebrale Kinderlaehmung (Littlesche Krankheit). Allg. Zschr. Psychiat., 112: 262–293.Google Scholar
Thums, K. 1939 b. Die Ergebnisse der Zwillings-Forschung bei multipler Sklerose. Nervenarzt, 12: 463–469.Google Scholar
Thums, K. 1939 c. Das Erblichkeitsproblem bei der multiplen Sklerose. Muench. med. Wschr., 86: 1634–1638.Google Scholar
Tiedemann, F. 1813. Anatomie der kopflosen Missgeburten. Landshut: J. Thomann.Google Scholar
Timoféeff-Ressovsky, N.W. 1931. Gerichtetes Variieren in der phaenotypischen Manifestierung einiger Genovariationen von Drosophila funebris. Naturwiss., 19: 493–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torgersen, J. 1949. Genetic factors in visceral asymmetry and in the development and pathologic changes of lungs, heart, and abdominal organs. Arch. Pathol., 47: 566–593.Google Scholar
Townend, B.R. 1950. Twins. Dent. Ree, 70: 217–218.Google ScholarPubMed
Tshetverikov, N.W. 1936. Some statistical formulae of use in twin studies. Proc. Gorky Medico-Genet. Inst., Vol. 4. Moscow: Biomedgiz.Google Scholar
Tsuchiya, S. 1939. Ueber die Groesse und das Gewicht des Herzens bei den japanischen Zwillingsfeten. Okajimas Fol. Anat., Jap. 18: 81–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuescher, H. 1936. Zur Frage der Entscheidung ueber die Ein- oder Zweieiigkeit bei bichorischen biamniotischen Zwillingen mit Gefaessanastomosen in der Plazenta. Der Erbarzt, No. 10, page: 148–149 (Suppl. to Dent. Aerztebl., Bd. 66).Google Scholar
Turnacliff, D.D. 1931. Alopecia areata in twins. Arch. Derm. Syph., Chic. 24: 1122.Google Scholar
Uehlinger, E., Kuensch, K. 1938. Ueber Zwillingstuberculose; Untersuchungen an 46 Paaren. Beitr. klin. Tuberk. 92: 275–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullrich, O. von, 1938. Angeborene Herzhypertrophie mit Endokardfibrose bei zwei eineiigen Partnern von maennlichen Drillingen. Zschr. menschl. Vererb., 21: 585–598.Google Scholar
Vaccarezza, R.F., Dutrey, J. 1944. El factor genético en la patogenia de la tuberculosis; su estudio en 286 pares de gemelos. Anales Cátedra Patol. Clin. Tuberc, B. Air. 6: 181–231.Google Scholar
Vermelin, H. 1947. A propos de la gémellité. Gyn. Obst., 46: 386–387.Google Scholar
Verschuer, O. von 1925. Ein Fall von Monochorie bei zweieiigen Zwillingen. Muench. med. Wschr., 72: 184.Google Scholar
Verschuer, O. von 1927. Die vererbungsbiologische Zwillingsforschung; ihre biologischen Grundlagen. Ergebn. inn. M. Kinderheilk. 31: 35–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschuer, O. von 1931. Ergebnisse der Zwillingsforschung. Verh. Gesell, phys. Anthrop. (Deut. Gesell. Rassenforschung), 6: 1–65.Google Scholar
Verschuer, O. von 1934. Neue Ergebnisse der Zwillingsforschung. Arch. Gynaek., 156: 362–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschuer, O. von 1939. Twin research from the time of Galton to the present day. Proc. Roy. Soc, Lond. B-128: 62–81.Google Scholar
Verschuer, O. von 1940. Statistik der Zwillingsforschung. In Burgdoerfer, F. (Ed.): Die Statistik in Deutschland nach ihrem heutigen Stand (Bd. I). Berlin: P. Schmidt.Google Scholar
Versluys, J.J. 1934. Zwillingspathologischer Beitrag zur Aetiologie der Tumoren. Zschr. Krebsforsch. 41: 239–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vignes, H. 1925. Des Jumeaux. Revue Anthrop., Par. 35: 211–233.Google Scholar
Vogt, A. 1938. Weitere Augenstudien an eineiigen Zwillingen hoeheren Alters ueber die Vererbung der Altersmerkmale. Klin. Mbl. Augenh., 100: 497–544.Google Scholar
Vogt, A., Wagner, H., Richner, H., Meyer, G. 1939. Das Senium bei eineiigen und zweieiigen Zwillingen. Arch. Jul. Klaus Stift., 14: 475–597.Google Scholar
Voute, P.A. 1936. Tweeling-ondersoek; diagnostiek en methodiek. Maandschr. Kindergeneesk, 5: 202–214.Google Scholar
Waardenburg, P.J. 1941. Niewe ervaringen bij tweelingen. Ned. Tschr. Geneesk., 85: 4013–4014.Google Scholar
Waardenburg, P.J. 1947. Mensch en Maatschappij (Ver. Ned. Nat. Bur. Anthrop.), Vol. 20. (Discussed by Lenz 1950).Google Scholar
Waardenburg, P.J. 1950. Twin research in ophthalmology. Dccum. Ophthal., 4: 154–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waddington, C.H. 1932. Experiments on the development of chick and duck embryos cultivated in vitro . Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B-221: 179–230.Google Scholar
Waddington, C.H. 1939. An introduction to modern genetics. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Waddington, C.H. 1940. Organizers and Genes. Cambridge: Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, G.A. 1927. Zur Diagnose der Eineiigkeit oder Zweieiigkeit der Zwillinge. Med. Klin., Berlin, 23: 936–938.Google Scholar
Wagner, G.A. 1929. Der intervilloese Raum. Arch. Gyn., 137: 699–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walcher, G. 1905. Ueber die Entstehung von Brachy-und Dolichocephalie durch willkuerliche Beeinflussung des kindlichen Schaedels; vorlaeufige Mitteilung. Zbl. Gynaek., 29: 193–196. (See Elsaesser).Google Scholar
Walker, N. Ford 1947. A further description of a set of quadriovular quadruplets (A study of dermal configurations and tooth eruption). Am. J. Obst., 54: 266–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wanscher, J.H. 1943. The hereditary background of handwriting; an investigation of the handwritings of monozygotic and dizygotic twins. Acta Psychiat. Neur., 18: 349–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, R. 1949. Mongolism in one of twins and in another sibling. Am. J. Dis. Child., 78: 573–588. (Includes a valuable review of the problem of mongolism in twins).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waterhouse, J.A.H. 1950. Twinning in twin pedigrees. Brit. J. Soc. M., 4: 197–216.Google ScholarPubMed
Weber, F. 1924. Die mehrfache Schwangerschaft. In Doederlein, A.: Handbuch der Geburtshilfe (Bd. I). Muenchen: Bergmann.Google Scholar
Weber, F.P. 1927. Facial and aural congenital maldevelopment in one of twins. Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. London 20: 33–35 (or 1193–1196).Google ScholarPubMed
Weinberg, W. 1901. Beitraege zur Physiologie und Pathologie der Mehrlingsgeburten beim Menschen. Pfluegers Arch., 88: 346–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weismann, A. 1893. The Germ-Plasm. A Theory of Heredity, London: Walter Scott, Ltd. Google Scholar
Weiss, P. 1939. Principles of Development. A Text in Experimental Embryology. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Weitz, W. 1924. Studien an eineiigen Zwillingen. Zschr. klin. M., 101: 115–124.Google Scholar
Wells, L.J. 1945. A case of iliothoracopagus (dicephalus tribrachius tripus) with a consideration of the “budding” and “fission” theories of twinning. Anat. Ree, 92: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenner, R. 1947. Ueber den plazentaren Blutkreislauf bei eineiigen Zwillingen. Schweiz, med. Wschr., 77: 140–141.Google Scholar
Wespi, H. 1941. Schizophrenie bei eineiigen Zwillingen. Kasuistischer Bericht zum Problem “endogen-exogen” im der Schizophrenieforschung. Schweiz. Arch. Neur. Psychiat., 48: 110–128.Google Scholar
Westphalen, F. 1897. Ueber den mikrochemischen Nachweis von Eisen in foetalen Organismus nebst Beschreibung eines Falles von Schatz'scher Zwillingsschwangerschaft. Arch. Gynaek., 53: 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wibaut, F. 1926. (Untitled comment reporting 2 monozygotic pairs discordant for myopia). Klin. Mbl. Augenh., 76: 138.Google Scholar
Wiel (See Stalpart van der Wiel C).Google Scholar
Wiener, A.S., Leff, I.L. 1940. Chances of establishing the non-identity of biovular twins, with special references to individuality tests of the blood. Genetics 25: 187–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wigers, F. 1934. Ein Eineiiges, bezueglich Schizophrenie diskordantes Zwillingspaar. Acta Psychiat., Kbh., 9: 541–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilde, K. 1937. Ueber Intelligenzuntersuchungen an Zwillingen. Zschr. indukt. Abstamm., 73: 512–516.Google Scholar
Wilde, K. 1941. Mess- und Auswertungsmethoden in erbpsychologischen Zwillingsuntersuchungen. Arch. ges. Psychol., 109: 1–81.Google Scholar
Wilder, H.H. 1904. Duplicate twins and double monsters. Am. J. Anat., 3: 387–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilder, H.H. 1919. Physical correspondences in two sets of duplicate twins. J. Hered., 10: 410–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J.W. 1941. Obstetrics (8th ed.). New York: Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
Wilson, P.T. 1934. A study of twins with special reference to heredity as a factor determining differences in environment. Human Biol., 6: 324–354.Google Scholar
Wilson, P.T., Jones, H.E. 1931. A study of like-sex twins. I. The vital statistics and familial data of the sample. II. Their health and disease records. Human Biol., 3: 107–132; 270–281.Google Scholar
Wilson, P.T., Jones, H.E. 1932. Left-handedness in twins. Genetics, 17: 560–571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SirThomas, Wilson 1900. Hydramnion in cases of unioval or homologous twins. Tr. Obst. Soc. London, 41: 235–274.Google Scholar
Wilson, W.L. 1946. A consideration of the possibility of hereditary diathesis in dental caries. J. Am. Dent. Ass., 33: 455–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winckel, F. 1890. A Textbook of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: Blakiston.Google Scholar
Windle, B.C.A. 1892. A note on identical malformations in twins. J. Anat. Physiol., 26: 295–299.Google ScholarPubMed
Wingfield, A.H. 1928. Twins and Orphans. London: Dent and Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wislocki, C.B. 1939. Observations on twinning in marmosets. Am. J. Anat. 64: 445–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wise, N.B., Comeau, W.J., White, P.D. 1939. Electrocardiograms in twins. Am. Heart J., 17: 701–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witschi, E. 1934. Appearance of accessory “organizers” in overripe eggs of the frog. Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. Med., 31: 419–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodworth, R.S. 1941. Heredity and Environment. A Critical Survey of Recently Published Material on Twins and Foster Children. New York: Soc. Sci. Research Council.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. 1945. Genes as physiological agents; general considerations. Am. Nat., 79: 289–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurzbach, F.A., Bunkin, I.A. 1949. Unilateral acute hydramnios in uniovular twin pregnancy. J. Obst. Gyn. Brit. Emp., 56: 242–245. (Includes a discussion of Schatz's findings).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yates, N., Brash, H. 1941. An investigation of the physical and mental characteristics of a pair of like twins reared apart from infancy. Ann. Eugen., 11: 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yerusbalmy, J., Sheerar, S.E. 1940. Studies on twins. II. On the early mortality of like-sexed and unlike-sexed twins. Human Biol., 12: 247–263.Google Scholar
Yule, E.P. 1935. The resemblance of twins with regard to perserveration. J. Ment. Sc., 81: 489–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zazzo, R. 1940. La méthode des jumeaux. L'Année Psychol., 1942 vol. (delayed 1940-41): 227–242.Google Scholar
Zeleny, C. 1911. Experiments on the control of asymmetry in the development of the serpulid Hydroides dianthus . J. Morphol., 22: 927–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zilian, E. 1938. Ergebnisse einer psychologischen Untersuchung an erbgleichen und erbungleichen Zwillingen. Zschr. ang. Psychol. Beih. 79: 42–50.Google Scholar