Talk:Superfetation

message: 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)
thread_title: hey

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Another case? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  is it possible? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Example of superfetation in fish inconsistent? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Source for broadened definition 

message: 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)
replies: text: Feel free to make any necessary corrections, Blixton. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superfetation versus Differential Growth 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Claimed to be Common? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Human Superfetation - is it, or is it not possible? 

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