tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (12/12/88)
--
So many worlds, so much to do, | ARPA: tittle@ics.uci.edu
So little done, such things to be | BITNET: cltittle@uci.bitnet
--Tennyson | UUCP: {sdcsvax|ucbvax}!ucivax!tittletittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (12/12/88)
Arrrrgggghhhh...our rn server seems to have edited my message out;
let me try again (*S*I*G*H*)
(If this isn't the right group to post to; I apologize, and will
take suggestions as to where to take this question.)
I remember reading in a medical journal somewhere about some differences
in male/female fetal development. The basic idea, as I recall, was that
male fetuses were more fragile; more of them were lost to spontaneous
miscarriages, etc. Since a more-or-less equal number of male/female
babies were born, this suggested 1) that more males were fertilized and
2) that female fetuses tended to survive the various tribulations during
gestation.
Furthermore, there were indications that among sick (premature or diseased)
babies, the females tended to survive better than males.
Can anyone give me references to the above points, either in
confirmation or in refutation? Please e-mail all comments and references
to me at one of the addresses below, since I don't read this group.
Many advance thanks!!
--Cindy
--
So many worlds, so much to do, | ARPA: tittle@ics.uci.edu
So little done, such things to be | BITNET: cltittle@uci.bitnet
--Tennyson | UUCP: {sdcsvax|ucbvax}!ucivax!tittlejk3k+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) (12/15/88)
If you plot the male/female ratio versus age, you get a consistent trend. More males are born, but more die in infancy and childhood. There's a crossover age (i forget what) at which there are equal numbers of each. At (say) 90 years old, there are many more females. So you'd expect an even higher ratio for embryos than infants born. There you are, proof by extrapolation. --Joe