So I have some twins
in my families, like most people do.
However, not everyone has a photo like this of their twin Great-Aunts at school around 1919ish:
Their names were
Mazie and Daisy, born on May 1, 1913. That's Daisy on the left and Mazie on the right.
Through no fault of
theirs, the second I saw this photo for the first time, what do you think
popped into my head?
Here's how it went in my brain:
|
|
|
|
\/
|
|
|
|
\/
|
|
|
|
\/
|
|
|
|
\/
Of course, Stanley
Kubrik's The Shining: "Come and play with us Leah, forever, and ever, and ever."
Sorry Aunt Mazie and
Daisy! I love your photo and lay all the
blame on Stanley Kubrick.
In the meantime
though, some additional data on twins in my family!
One interesting
note, Mazie and Daisy were older sisters to my grandmother Ann. Her husband, William Domelle, also had older
twin siblings, a boy and a girl, BORN IN THE SAME YEAR - 1913!!!!! WHOA!
Right? Weird!
And some real data
from my Maternal side of the family:
Sets of twins:
Jeremiah and
Nathanial BOSWORTH, b. 1649
Isaac and Nathanial
TURNER, b. 1669
Isaac and Stephen
FOOTE, b. 1672
Hannah and John
AUSTIN, b. 1677
Joseph and Samuel
NORTON, b. 1681
Abigail and Ebenezer
NORTON, b. 1683
Mary and Ruth
ATWATER, b. 1686
Experience and
Rachel IDE, b. 1696
Hepsibah and Martha
DAGGETT, b. 1701
Katherine and
Nathanial BLISS, b. 1702
Hepsibeth and Martha
COOPER, b. 1729
Abel and Joanna
ROYCE, b. 1730
Dareks and Dorcas
MANN, b. 1731
Daniel and Lament
COLLINS, b. 1745
Abigail and Allen
BOSWORTH, b. 1758
Nathan and Olive
IDE, b. 1759
David and Susannah
BROWN, b. 1782
Janet and Susan
INGRAHAM, b. 1822
Charles and Darius
BOWEN, b. 1824
George and William
INGRAHAM, b. 1829
Marilda and Matilda
KIRBY, b. 1857
Flora and Frederick
ORCUTT, b. 1867
Alice and Edward
ELIOT, b. 1885
Lena and Leon
SIMPSON, b. 1896
Mazie and Daisy MIX,
b. 1913
Anthony and Anna
DOMELLE, b. 1913
Total # of Twins: 52 total, 26 sets
Female vs. Male: 25 males, 27 females, 6 sets both
male, 7 sets both female, 10 sets 1 each
Distribution:
8 sets in 1600s
9 sets in 1700s
7 sets in 1800s
2 sets in 1900s
0 sets in 2000s
Seems like our
incidence of twins has petered out during the last century. But whether that is due to smaller family
size or dilution of the genes is up to a scientist to figure out, not me! :-)
