did not read the article, but did it say the ovum split before fertilization?
That is weird.
ditto to the last part of your post.
(from article)
“Twins are normally either identical or fraternal. In the case of identical, one egg is fertilised by one sperm, but the resulting ball of cells splits in two, giving rise to two offspring with identical genetic material. In the case of fraternal, or non-identical, twins, two eggs are fertilised, each by a different sperm. The resulting siblings arise from the same pregnancy, but are no more genetically similar than siblings from the same parents born at a different time.”
SO.... one egg splits in two - Identical twins
Two eggs fertilized at same time by different sperm - Fraternal twins
Three sperm fertilize the same egg - semi-identical twins
Don’t believe posts from those to that are too lazy to read the artcle.
did not read the article, but did it say the ovum split before fertilization?
*********************************************************
No, it had some other “explanation” that appeared (to me) to be nonsense.
The twins that the article discussed each had their cells with nuclei that contained genetic material that consisted of IDENTICAL haploid genetic material from the mother. As best as I remember from freshman biology, the haploid (the genetic material in the egg) of each egg produced by the mother contains a unique combination of the mother’s thousands of genes/genetic material. In other words, the maternal haploid contribution in both twins must have originated from a single egg. Once that maternal haploid “combines” with the haploid from a sperm, it’s no longer a haploid but complete (46 chromosomes) genetic material for the now fertilized egg. The maternal haploid is no longer available to “combine” with the haploid of a different sperm. So, the maternal haploid must have somehow split into two absolutely identical maternal haploids to be available for two different sperm.
My curiosity is aroused so I’m going to have to look into this more.