Talk:Craniopagus parasiticus

Untitled

Is this the same condition that nurse Gollum has in the South Park episode titled "Conjoined Fetus Lady"?--Sonjaaa 21:21, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

>>Not really. The condition Nurse Gollum has is a broader condition known as asymmetrical conjoined twinning. Craniopagus parasiticus is a type of asymmetrical conjoined twinning, but it is not specifically what the nurse had.

What about mention of the Chinese fellow who was featured on Ripley's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.174.24 (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this really a stub?

Of course, there can be additional information regarding each of the eight cases, but such information is more apropriate in specific articles. As for general information or categorizing, there can hardly be any because there are only eight cases. This means that there is probably, very little information which can be added. Under such circumstances, can this article really be called a stub?--132.68.249.124 22:00, Mar 29, 2006 (UTC)

Just to mention it, while we're on the subject: the sentence talking about the number of cases ("There have only been eight documented cases of this phenomenon, though to-date there have been at least eighty separate cases of this phenomenon written about in various records") does not read clearly - does it mean that there have been eight cases but eighty studies of those eight cases, or what? Hierophany 07:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

References

Why are there so many references for this? The references are longer than the definitive part of the entry. A little excessive I think..

References should be cited whenever a person writes a thought that is not his or her own. Journal articles typically have 8-10 citations in one paragraph. -- User:Marxbro1985 03:37, 18 January 2007 (signature entered by marilyn.hanson 12:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Why is this genetics

Craniopagus parasiticus seems like it is caused by a physical condition in the womb. Genetics don't determine if twins will be conceived, nor if they will fuse together. Or am I missing something? -- kenb215 talk 01:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think, basically you're right: It primarily is an "accident" in the womb. But maybe there are genetic factors that have an influence on the adhesion of the developing stem cells that are to become a more or less independent twin, or even on the mother's disposition to ovulate two or more ova at the same time, thus leading to a higher chance of a twin pregnancy. But it's a physical condition like a lot of other prenatal defects/conditions in the first place, for unknown reasons until now, so the genetics are just speculations. -- marilyn.hanson 02:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So I'm fixing the category thing: Now in cat:Congenital disorders. -- marilyn.hanson 02:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Development of the head

Does the second head actually work like another head or is it just a part that is immobile, etc.? Can it talk? or is it just extra and unsentient? Ilikefood 00:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the case. I don't think that there has ever been a second head that was normal and capable of speech. However, sometimes the extra head is able to do things like smiling and suckling. -- kenb215 talk 20:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Factual error in reference

This link: http://english.pravda.ru/science/health/27-03-2006/77864-birth-0 states "With this anomaly the embryo divides but does not entirely develop into two twins. In actual fact the second head belonged to the girl’s unborn brother." This is impossible. I'm not sure which sentence is the correct one, perhaps someone with more knowledge of the case knows, but this is clearly not a reliable source. If the baby's birth defect was in fact caused by ONE embryo that began to divide to form twins and then didn't properly do so, it would be impossible for the twin or "second head" to be of a different gender (unless a very rare mutation occurred during development). In all the other articles I've read of this child, they never refer to the other twin or head being the baby girl's undeveloped brother. I still don't think it would be possible for any of the rare mutations or circumstances that can cause monozygotic twins to be different genders are possible in the case of conjoined twins that formed from ONE egg, as the article states. Since I am not 100% certain there wasn't some other anomaly of science involved in this case, I won't remove the reference, but can another editor who knows more check it out please? The article also contains grammatical errors and odd wording, and doesn't appear to be written in a professional way. LibertyCrusader (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Two-Headed Boy of Bengal

I think that there needs to be an individual article for the two-headed boy of bengal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.216.166 (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Page is being adopted for editing

Hello, in the next few months I (user: crmccoy) will be improving this page for a class project under the supervision of Dr. Susan Chapman (User:Drsusan1968) at Clemson University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crmccoy (talk • contribs) 16:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

reference 1 Journal of Clinical Neuroscience patient?

There are 4 facts cited from the JCN reference ... but no mention of the guy pictured in the JCN paper: a man (or grown teenager) with a twin head upside down on his head, like the Boy of Bengal. The wikipedia article only mentions 3 cases to have survived birth, and this guy isn't included. I'm confused. I don't know enough about this to add him, because I don't have access to the full JCN paper, but I hope somebody out there can figure this out. Ukrpickaxe (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Craniopagus parasiticus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120405153845/http://www.forteantimes.com:80/features/articles/148/the_twoheaded_boy_of_bengal.html to http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/148/the_twoheaded_boy_of_bengal.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Wrong statistic in opening sentence?

The start of the article lists this condition as "occurring in about 2 to 3 of 5,000,000 births". The cited reference is not freely readable so I can't confirm, but later in the article it is stated that only ten cases of this condition have been documented, which seems to imply an incidence of closer to 2 to 3 of 5,000,000,000 births (5 billion rather than 5 million), and certainly vastly less than 2-3 in 5 million births, which would imply there should be hundreds if not thousands of documented cases.

If the opening sentence is instead meant to be 2-3 of 5 million parasitic twinning births, this isn't clear from the wording.

Can someone with access to the initial citation confirm that this statistic is accurate? If so, it seems to warrant further explanation of why there are so few documented cases. -- Makosuke (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)