The Twins!

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!  :-)