Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:00:41.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fertility, Fecundity and Twinning: A Comparison of the Trends in Births and Twinning in Australia from 1854 to 1982

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

John D.H. Doherty
John D.H. Doherty*
Affiliation:
Medical Service, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy
*
Medical Service, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Via delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The trends in births and in twinning in Australia are compared from 1854 to 1982. Until about 1930 the twinning rate increased as births fell. The two rates then became concordant. The relationship of fecundity to twinning is discussed. Comparison with other countries is made. The period embraces the demographic transition when changing contraceptive practices would have had a variable effect on twinning.

Keywords

TwinningFecundityFertilityContraceptionAustraliaSecular trend
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , April 1988 , pp. 119 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1988

References

REFERENCES

1.Allen, G (1978): The parity effect and fertility in mothers of twins. In Nance, WE, Allen, G, Parisi, P (eds): Twin Research. Part B: Biology and Epidemiology. New York: Alan R Liss, pp 89–97.Google Scholar
2.Allen, G (1981): The twinning and fertility paradox. In Gedda, L, Parisi, P, Nance, WE (eds): Twin Research 3. Part A: Twin Biology and Multiple Pregnancy. New York: Alan R Liss, pp 1–13.Google Scholar
3.Allen, G, Schachter, J (1970): Do conception delays explain some changes in twinning rates? Acta Genet Med Gemellol 19: 30–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Allen, G, Schachter, J (1971): Ease of conception in mothers of twins. Soc Biol 18: 18–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Bulmer, MG (1959): The effect of parental age, parity and duration of marriage on the twinning rate. Ann Hum Genet 23: 454–458.Google Scholar
6.Caldwell, JC, Ruzicka, LT (1978): The Australian fertility transition: An analysis. Popul Dev R 4: 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Doherty, JDH, Lancaster, PAL (1986): The secular trend of twinning in Australia, 1853-1982. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 35: 61–76.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Elwood, JM (1973): Changes in the twinning rate in Canada 1926-70. Br J Prev Soc Med 27: 236–241.Google ScholarPubMed
9.Eriksson, AW, Eskola, MR, Fellman, JO (1976): Retrospective studies on the twinning rate in Scandinavia. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 25: 29–35.Google Scholar
10.Eriksson, AW, Fellman, J (1967): Twinning in relation to the maritai status of the mother. Acta Genet Stat Med 17: 385–398.Google Scholar
11.Eriksson, AW, Fellman, J (1973): Difference in the twinning trend between Finns and Swedes. Am J Hum Genet 25: 141–151.Google Scholar
12.Imaizumi, Y, Inouye, E (1979): Analysis of multiple birth rates in Japan. 1. Secular trend, maternal age effect, and geographical variation in twinning rates. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 28: 107–124.Google Scholar
13.James, WH (1975): The secular decline in dizygotic twinning rates in Italy. Acta Genet Med Gemellol 24: 9–14.Google Scholar
14.James, WH (1981): Has fecundability been declining in recent years in developed countries? J Biosoc Sci 13: 419–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.James, WH (1981); Dizygotic twinning, marital stage and status and coital rates. Ann Hum Biol 8: 371–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.James, WH (1982): Second survey of secular trends in twinning rates. J Biosoc Sci 14: 481–497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Jeanneret, O, MacMahon, B (1962): Secular changes in rates of multiple births in the United States. Am J Hum Genet 14: 410–425.Google ScholarPubMed
18.Jones, EF (1971): Fertility decline in Australia and New Zealand 1861–1936. Popul Ind 37: 301–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Knibbs, GH (1917): The Mathematical Theory of Population, of Its Character and Fluctuations, and of the Factors Which Influence Them, Being an Exaniination of the General Scheme of Statistical Representation, with Deductions of Necessary Formulae; the Whole Being Applied to the Data of the Australian Census of 1911, and to the Elucidation of Australian Population Statistics Generally. Appendix A. Volume 1. Census of the Commonwealth of Australia. Melbourne: Government Printer.Google Scholar
20.Parisi, P, Caperna, G (1981): The changing incidence of twinning: One century of Italian statistics. In Gedda, L, Parisi, P, Nance, WE (eds): Twin Research 3. Part A: Twin Biology and Multiple Pregnancy. New York: Alan R Liss, pp 35–48.Google Scholar
21.Parisi, P, Caperna, G (1982): Twinning rates fertility and industrialisation: A secular study. In: Human Genetica. Part A: The Unfolding Genome. New York: Alan R Liss, pp 375–394.Google Scholar
22.Rachootin, P, Olsen, J (1980): Secular changes in the twinning rate in Denmark. Scand J Soc Med 8: 89–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.van de Walle, E, Knodel, J (1980): Europe's fertility transition: New evidence and lessons for today's developing world. Popul Bull 34: 3–43.Google ScholarPubMed
24.Wyshak, G (1975): Some observations on the decline in the United States dizygotic twinning rate. Soc Biol 22: 167–172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed