354 Dr . Clarke’s Obfervaiions on the 
latter, perhaps, not one bad in ten. * The difference of mor- 
tality that would enfue both to mothers and children thus 
fituated, and the greater fufferings of the male than female fex, 
may be eafily conceived, but not eafily calculated. We fee 
that, when a woman conceives twins, and has two fcetufes in 
utero to nourifh inftead of one, it becomes peculiarly fatal 
both to her and her offspring. The chances are above four to 
one greater again ft her than v .againft a woman bringing forth, 
one child, and about two to one againft her iffue 
Give me leave. Sir, to call your attention a little further to 
the fails relating to twins. They are Angular and curious, at 
the fame time that they ferve to confirm fome of the preceding 
reafoning. Near one-half more twins die, and near one-third 
more are ftill-born, than of Angle children. And why? — It 
is not becaufe they meet with greater difficulties in the birth. 
On the contrary, it is a known fad, that, being much lefs 
than other children, women bring them forth with more eafe. 
Does it not then proceed from a fcanty nutrition, by which 
they are oftener blighted in utero than fingle children ; and, 
when born alive, have lefs ftrength to fupport life through the 
firft ftages of its exiftence. 
It is farther worthy of obfervation, that though double the 
numbers of twins die and are ftill-born, compared to fingle 
children, yet the proportion of male twins loft to females is 
lefs. Only one-fifth more of the male fex die than of the 
female* and only one-third more is ftill-born. Whereas of 
fingle children, whofe proportional mortality is one-half lefs, 
one-fourth more of the male fex die, and near double the num- 
ber is ftill-born. To what then are we to attribute tfiisleflened 
mortality in favour of male twins? Probably to their brain and 
* Compare the 7th and 14th, 6th and 1 3th inferences in the annexed extracts. 
nervous 
