Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T16:49:43.536Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IX.—Sources of Variation in Human Birth Weights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2014

H. P. Donald
H. P. Donald
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh
Get access

Extract

At times when processes of great ontogenetic importance are taking place, the interaction of heredity and environment presents problems of considerable interest. Laying as it does the foundations of future independent existence, prenatal development must be the concern of all those interested in the mental and physical suitability of human beings for the environment in which they have to live. Owing to lack of information, pregnancy from the point of view of the fœtus has perforce been largely neglected by the physician and sociologist, but the need to remedy this defect in our knowledge had been clearly indicated by Hogben (1931). As an of example of a field of research that would repay much attention, the work of Pearson (1914) and S. Hansen (1920) may be mentioned. These author wrote suggestively of the handicap of the first-born, using extensive data on the incidence of disease, mental defect, and the physical qualities of the new-born child in relation to birth order.

Type
Proceedings
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 59 , 1940 , pp. 91 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1940

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

References to Literature

Bean, R. B., 1924. “The Pulse of Growth in Man,” Anat. Rec., vol. xxviii, pp. 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brander, T., 1938. “Kann die Konstitution durch Frühgeburt verändert werden?” Zeits. mensch. Vererb. u. Konstitutionl., vol. xxii, pp. 61–68. (Quoted from Resumptio Gen., vol. xiii, p. 65, 1938.)Google Scholar
Capper, A., 1928. “The Fate and Development of the Immature and of the Premature Child,” Amer. Journ. Dis. Children, vol. xxxv, pp. 262–288, 433–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, A. B., and Lush, J. L., 1932. “Twinning, Sex-ratio, and Genetic Variability in Birth Weight in Sheep,” Journ. Hered., vol. xxiii, pp. 473–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, H. H., and Hart, G. H., 1938. “The Effect of Pregnancy and Lactation on Growth in the Rat,” Amer. Journ. Physiol., vol. cxxiii, pp. 589–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, J. M., 1871. Fecundity, Fertility, and Sterility, A. & C. Black, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Essen-Möller, E., 1930. “Ähneln sich zweieiige Zwillinge mehr als eineiige Zwillinge in Bezug auf Gewicht und Länge bei der Geburt?” Acta obstet. gynecol. scand., vol. ix, pp. 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A., 1936. Statistical Methods for Research Workers, 6th ed., Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Goldfeld, Z., 1912. “Die Abhängigkeit der körperlichen Entwicklung Neugeborener vom Beruf ihrer Eltern, Zeits. Geburtshilfe, vol. lxxii, p. 407.Google Scholar
Griswold, D. J., 1930. “A Study of Breeding Ewe Lambs,” Proc. Amer. Soc. An. Prod., pp. 106–108.Google Scholar
Hansen, H. J., 1920–28. (First issued 1913.) “Undersøgelser over nyfødte Børns Vaegt,” Medd. Danmarks Antropologi, vol. ii, pp. 1–110.Google Scholar
Hansen, S., 1920–28. “Om de først fødte Børns ringere Kvalitet,” Medd. Danmarks Antropologi, vol. ii, pp. 111–152.Google Scholar
Heiberg, P., 1911. “Om Vejninger af nyfødte Børn,” Medd. Danmarks Antropologi, vol. i, pp. 337–350.Google Scholar
Hogben, L., 1931. Genetic Principles in Medicine and Social Science, Allen & Unwin, London, 230 pp.Google Scholar
Hogben, L., 1933. Nature and Nurture, Norton, New York, 143 pp.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. M., 1909. “On the Pre-natal Growth of the Human Body and the Relative Growth of the Various Organs and Parts,” Amer. Journ. Anat., vol. ix, pp. 119–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lush, J. L., Hetzer, H. O., and Culbertson, C. C., 1934. “Factors Affecting Birth Weights of Swine,” Genetics, vol. xix, pp. 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paton, N., and Findlay, L., 1926. “Poverty Nutrition and Growth,” Med. Res. Council Rept., H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Pearson, K., 1914. “On the Handicapping of the First-Born,” Galton Lab. Publ., Dulau, London.Google Scholar
Registrar-General, 1936. The Registrar-General's Statistical Review of England and Wales for the Year 1936, Part I, H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Schultz, A. H., 1926. “Fœtal Growth of Man and Other Primates,” Quart. Rev. Biol., vol. i, pp. 463–521.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W., 1934. Calculation and Interpretation of Analysis of Variance and Covariance, Collegiate Press, Ames, Iowa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockard, C. R., 1920. “Developmental Rate and Structural Expression: An Experimental Study of Twins, ‘Double Monsters,’ and Single Deformities, and the Interaction among Embryonic Organs during their Origin and Development,” Amer. Journ. Anat., vol. xxviii, pp. 115–277.Google Scholar
Sunde, A., 1930. “Die Prognose der Frühgeborenen und die Prophylaxe des Geburtstraumas,” Acta. obstet. gynecol. scand., vol. ix, pp. 477–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toverud, K. U., 1933. “Nutritional Condition of New-Born Infants,” Amer. Journ. Dis. Children, vol. xlvi, pp. 954–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, A., and Hammond, J., 1938. “The Maternal Effects on Growth and Conformation in Shire Horse-Shetland Pony Crosses,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., B, vol. cxxv, pp. 311–335.Google Scholar
Westergaard, H., 1890. “Statistikens Theori.” (Quoted by Heiberg.)Google Scholar
Wright, S., 1922. “The Effects of Inbreeding and Crossbreeding on Guinea-Pigs. 1. Decline in Vigour. II. Differentiation among Inbred Families,” U.S. Dept. Agric. Bull. 1090, pp. 1–63. III. “Crosses between Highly Inbred Families,” U.S. Dept. Agric. Bull. 1121, pp. 1–60.Google Scholar