Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:31:36.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maternal Age, Order of Birth and Developmental Abnormalities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

L. S. Penrose
L. S. Penrose*
Affiliation:
From the Research Department, Royal Eastern Counties' Institution, Colchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since early times interest has centred round the problem of whether special virtue or taint is attached to the first-born child. Some recent workers, like Pearson (1914), have believed the first-born child to be liable to physical and mental handicaps. Still (1927) focuses attention on certain diseases which appeared to be more frequently manifested in the first child in a family than in children born later in that family. He also realized that maternal age might be a significant factor in other conditions. A summary of a good deal of the work done on these problems was published by Thurstone and Jenkins (1931). These writers drew attention also to parallel studies in animal genetics. Wright (1926 and 1936), by his analysis of Polydactyly and coat colour in guinea-pigs, laid a foundation for genetical work on maternal age. The effects he observed were due to alterations of characters in early offspring. Unfortunately, experimental animals rarely live long enough to make possible the corresponding study of maternal age effects at the end of the reproductive period. Evidence that birth order of itself is of significance in animal genetics has been scanty. Recently, however, Goetsch (1937) reported that the first eggs of the queen ant (Pheidole pallidula) give rise to small and physically feeble workers. In the present communication the results of some of the writer's recent researches on the effects of maternal age and birth order in human genetics are discussed. A multitude of human malformations are relevant to this study. Investigations of their respective ætiologies is of interest from the point of view of elucidating the effects of natural selection in man as well as from the standpoint of preventive medicine.

Type
Part I.—Original Articles
Information
Journal of Mental Science , Volume 85 , Issue 359 , November 1939 , pp. 1141 - 1150
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1939 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Benholdt-Thomsen-, C.—Zeitschr. f. Kinderheilk., 1932, liii, p. 427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleyer, A.—Proc. Amer. Assoc. Meni. Def., 1937, xlii, p. 111.Google Scholar
Cockayne, E. A.—Lancet, 1934, i, p. 898.Google Scholar
Idem.—Arch. Dis. Child., 1938, xiii, p. 249.Google Scholar
Idem. —Personal communication, 1939.Google Scholar
Doxiades, L., and Portius, W.—Z. Mensch. Vererb. u. Konst. Lehre, 1938, xxi, p. 384.Google Scholar
Fantham, H. B.—South African Journ. Sci., 1925, xxii.Google Scholar
Goetsch, F.—Naturwissenschaft, 1937, xxv, p. 803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, C. A.—Lancet, 1938, ii, p. 1489.Google Scholar
Greenwood, M., and Yule, G. U.—Journ. Statist. Soc., 1914, lxxvii, p. 179.Google Scholar
Jenkins, R. L.—Amer. Journ. Dis. Child., 1933, xlv, p. 506.Google Scholar
Malpas, P.—Journ. Obstet. Gynœcol. Brit. Emp., 1937, xliv, p. 434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, D. P.—Amer. Journ. Dis. Child., 1936, li, p. 1007.Google Scholar
Idem.—Amer. Journ., Obstet. Gynœcol., 1937, xviii, p. 189.Google Scholar
Orel, H.—Zeitschr. f. Kinderheilk., 1926, xlii, p. 440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, K.—On the Handicapping of the First-born, 1914. Dulau & Co., London.Google Scholar
Penrose, L. S.—Journ. Genetics, 1932, xxv, p. 407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idem .—Ibid., 1933, xxvii, p. 219.Google Scholar
Idem .—Ann. Eugenics, 1934, vi, p. 108.Google Scholar
Idem .—Med. Res. Coun. Sp. Rep. Series, No. 229, 1938a. H.M. Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Idem .—Journ. Ment. Sci., 1938b, lxxxiv, p. 693.Google Scholar
Idem .—Journ. Obstet. Gynœcol. Brit. Emp., 1939, xlvi, p. 645.Google Scholar
Still, G. F.—Lancet, 1927, pp. 795 and 853.Google Scholar
Schultz, B.—Zeitschr. ges. Neurol. Psychiat., 1931, cxxxiv, p. 268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snell, G. D., and Picken, D. I.—Journ. Genetics, 1935, xxxi, p. 213.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L., and Jenkins, R. L.—Order of Birth, Parent Age and Intelligence, 1931. Univ. of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Scheer, W. M.—Abh. Neurol. Psychiat. Psychol., 1927, xli, p. 1.Google Scholar
Wright, S.—Amer. Nat., 1926, lx, p. 552.Google Scholar
Idem and Chase, H. B.—Genetics, 1936, xxi, p. 758.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.