Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-6bnxx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T06:15:02.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A gene–culture co-evolutionary perspective on the puzzle of human twinship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2024

Augusto Dalla Ragione*
Affiliation:
Department of Human Behavior, Ecology and Culture, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
Cody T. Ross
Affiliation:
Department of Human Behavior, Ecology and Culture, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
Daniel Redhead
Affiliation:
Department of Human Behavior, Ecology and Culture, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany Department of Sociology, University of Groningen, Grote Rozenstraat 31, 9712 TG Groningen, The Netherlands Inter-University Center for Social Science Theory and Methodology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
*
Corresponding author: Augusto Dalla Ragione; Email: augusto_dalla_ragione@eva.mpg.de

Abstract

Natural selection should favour litter sizes that optimise trade-offs between brood-size and offspring viability. Across the primate order, the modal litter size is one, suggesting a deep history of selection favouring minimal litters in primates. Humans, however – despite having the longest juvenile period and slowest life-history of all primates – still produce twin births at appreciable rates, even though such births are costly. This presents an evolutionary puzzle. Why is twinning still expressed in humans despite its cost? More puzzling still is the discordance between the principal explanations for human twinning and extant empirical data. Such explanations propose that twinning is regulated by phenotypic plasticity in polyovulation, permitting the production of larger sib sets if and when resources are abundant. However, comparative data suggest that twinning rates are actually highest in poorer economies and lowest in richer, more developed economies. We propose that a historical dynamic of gene–culture co-evolution might better explain this geographic patterning. Our explanation distinguishes geminophilous and geminophobic cultural contexts, as those celebrating twins (e.g. through material support) and those hostile to twins (e.g. through sanction of twin-infanticide). Geminophilous institutions, in particular, may buffer the fitness cost associated with twinning, potentially reducing selection pressures against polyovulation. We conclude by synthesising a mathematical and empirical research programme that might test our ideas.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Geography of twinning rate and norms about the treatment of twins. (a) National twinning rate per 1000 births (adjusted for average maternal age) in 76 countries; data from Smits and Monden (2011). (b) A closer look at Africa. (c) Percentage of land area historically held by predominantly non-twin-killing groups, a proxy for geminophilous norms; data from Fenske and Wang (2023, fig. 4), who retrieved the information from Murdock (1959). Naive country-level regressions suggest that there are 3.84 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.72, 6.96; adjusted R2 = 0.12; N = 36; P = 0.017) more twin births per mille in countries where non-twin-killing groups make up the entire population, relative to countries where such geminophilous norms are not documented. Such an analysis, however, treats an absence of evidence of geminophilous norms, as evidence of absence. Restricting the sample to countries for which at least 50% of territory is unambiguously coded as historically populated by either twin-killing or non-twin-killing groups, the coefficient increases to 4.17, but the confidence region expands (95% CI, −3.02, 11.36; adjusted R2 = 0.02; N = 21; P = 0.241) to include the value of 0, owing to the smaller sample of countries. Finer-scale models are needed to make such comparative analyses rigorous, as simple regressions are subject to ecological confounding.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Relative fitness of double-ovulation as a function of resource endowment. WP is the fitness of the double-ovulation genotype; WS is the fitness of the single-ovulation genotype. Note that the x-axis is not necessarily partitioned in evenly spaced intervals; this is done here just for visualisation purposes.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Cumulative probability of at least one twin birth, as a function of twinning probability (xl = 0.013 blue, and xh = 0.045 red) and number of pregnancies. The horizontal dashed lines show the y-axis intercepts of the numerical examples given in the box.