Cindy Wells wrote in
. 142:

Steve Smith wrote in
9.130:

snip

When we found out that we were expecting twins last year, I did a lot
of research. One thing I found was the talk of a third type of twin,
ie not truely fraternal but not truely identical. These supposedly
would come from one egg that splits and gets fertilized with two
sperm. Therefore the mother's half of the genetic material is
identical in both twins, which explains "fraternal" twins that look
remarkably similar. I just googled and found this:
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/b...pages/Twins_id
entic al_and_fraternal?open

Supposedly this third type of twin is almost impossible to prove and
cannot be distinguished from fraternal (which is just basically
non-identical)



Actually, DNA testing would differentiate between all three
possibilities. Fraternal twins will share 50% of their genes, ID's 99%
(I don't think current tests admit 100% accuracy) and the polar body
twins will share 75% of their genetic structure.

Cindy Wells
(who has enough bio and biochem to have heard of many of the issues
with DNA analysis)
Steve



Oh, is that what people mean by saying "Polar Body twins"? I heard that
term for the first time on a post here in the last week or so and didn't
know what it meant. I didn't realize that "type" of twin was actually
recognized, in the original article I read (not the one I linked to), it
sounded like the author was just throwing a wild idea or something. Why the
term "Polar Body"? I ask the question, but I'm just gonna google it now
anyway, heh...

Steve