Wednesday, July 9, 2014

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!  :-)


No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment