Talk:Superfetation

hey

The whole section about superfetation in humans doesn't contain a single legitimate scientific source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.10.112 (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, whilst you lot were quibbling over the spelling - didn't one of you think to check the accuracy of the wiki entry??? It says (at the moment anyway) that:

"On the 1st of October 2007, Ame and Lia Herrity, conceived 3 weeks apart, were born in the United Kingdom to Amelia Spence and George Herrity."

If you check other news sources (instead of just relying on the link provided) additional information is provided which makes it clear that they were actually born five months ago. The poster confused the date of the newspaper article with the children's actual date of birth.

refer to: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.133.98.14 (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Manning, I think it is well within NPOV to say in parentheses ("often so-spelled by false analogy to xxx; medical and scientific language uses superfetation"). I can't think off the top of my head of any exampls other than phoenix and Phoebus Apollo to pop in. And to the person who said 'it's in a dictionary therefore it is a correct form', I say: hmph --MichaelTinkler, who thinks

Michael, what I said is that it's in a dictionary, therefore it's not fair of us to proclaim it as an incorrect use. I would still discourage it at every opportunity, change it whenever it appears, and point out that its use is based on incorrect Latin. But to say that anyone who uses it is wrong seems to be assuming somewhat more authority than we have. -- Josh Grosse

O.K. On the other hand, just because some dictionaries practice non-interventionist descriptive linguistics is no need for us to pretend that the word had an -o- in it. Let's explain why they're - ummm - misguided? Not following best spelling-practices? Wrong? --MichaelTinkler, who is trying to not be a pedant and failing.

Another case?

[1]

Not a credible source, so I'll add it here until somebody digs up some "real evidence".

Andreala (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I see this case has been added to the article. What about the Szakacs family now mentioned? I can find no citations. -Etoile (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

is it possible?

Regarding the more recent case of this, the article states "If it were possible to carry both children to term, the birth of the first child would be expected in December 2009, whereas the second child would be due in January 2010." This implies that it is not possible, but no explanation as to why it isn't possible is given. Is it impossible, and if so, why? --129.11.12.201 (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Answering for the sake of there being one. It is indeed impossible, since you can't go into labour twice with twins and have a gap feeling like it's at the 8 month mark all over again.-- 2.97.3.78 (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Example of superfetation in fish inconsistent?

The definition for superfetation given implies that superfetation can only occur in animals which have a uterus and experience a menstrual cycle. I think that only certain species of mammal have uteri and menstrual cycles. Yet it is claimed that superfetation exists in fish. I believe that this example is therefore inconsistent with the definition. Firstly, is it inconsistent (or is it indeed possible that (some) fish have an uterus)? Secondly, if it is inconsistent, should the definition be broadened to allow the case of viviparous fish? If the definition stands I believe the fish example is incorrect and should be removed.

Note that the definition

The simultaneous development of several broods within the ovary where they are nourished; enabled by the entrance and storage of sperm in the ovary, e.g. in Poeciliidae. Also spelled superfoetation."

given by the fishbase.org glossary requires the presence of ovaries and does not mention uteri or menstruation. This usage (by fishbase.org) argues in favor of broadening the definition. Karn Kallio (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Source for broadened definition

The definition was taken from the first page of

Superfetation in Poeciliid Fishes Nevin S. Scrimshaw Copeia, Vol. 1944, No. 3 (Sep. 30, 1944), pp. 180-183

Karn Kallio (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Superfetation versus Differential Growth

The article does not make clear, in the Australian case especially, how it is known that the two fetuses were conceived at different times rather than being conceived at the same time but maturing at different rates. Blixton (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to make any necessary corrections, Blixton. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Claimed to be Common?

"Superfetation is claimed to be common in some species of animals" - What is the intent or meaning of this statement?

To suggest that superfetation might not exist at all? Or that there are some species for which it is only claimed to exist? In the latter case it would be a pretty useless statement because surely it should be easy enough to confirm the occurrence of Superfetation (beyond just being a "claim") in at least "some species of animals" and it would be much more relevant to mention that in the lede instead of making this weird, ambiguous statement. 203.56.42.0 (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Human Superfetation - is it, or is it not possible?

It is stated to be believed to be unlikely to be possible in humans in this page, before going on to list it occurring in humans. While alternative explanations could work for some of these examples, the example of the surrogate mother would seem to only work through some sort of superfetation?

Or alternatively, rephrasing the "deemed unlikely" to be something like "some experts believe human superfetation to be unlikely, and instead that suspected cases in humans could be explained by X, Y, Z, instead"?

A possible useful source, though I cannot access the full text - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23043772/

And a suspected case - https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1469-0705.1992.02010051.x

2A01:388:505:150:0:0:1:1C (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

new australian case

maybe add the new australian case? just a thought 206.83.112.39 (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)