TWINS.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIII, Issue 7, 8 January 1878, Page 4

TWINS.

[From the New York TimesJ] Mrs Gamp once sarcastically remiiked to Mr Chuffy, when the latter hai made an assertion whinli, from a profesioniil point of view, she regarded as altogt-ther (00 presumptuous, thai perhaps he would have the goodness to givrf her his 'opinion of twins.' It ia obvious, from the circutnatances in which this remark was made that Mrs Gimp re^ar-el twiu3 as the most abstruse and difficult topic which enn be couriered by the human mind. That ehe was ri»lu in iliis estiaiote may be gathered from the care with which even the inst confident men have refrained from tfiviug their views of twin 3. Mr Curlyle ie, apparently, afraid of nothing, but he has neverUielesa hesitated to gfiipplo with tlie Bubject of twins. Mr Tupper has trickled hia wisJoiu over nearly everythio'7 on the earth butifiith and a variety of things iv tho heavens above, but wu may seiruh his ponderous book iv vain for ao alluiiou 10 twins. Tljh subject appals man of all classes and professions, and it is only recectiy that a writer — to wit, MiFrancis Galtop — has bean found bold enough to give us hia opinion on twins. Mr Galtoa has collected a vast array of the facts benring ou the subject which be discusses, and although he leaves his idea ot the origin of twins to be/inferrod instead of directly' express aed his reuJera can readily perceive (hat he regards twins as an ill-advised

and unsuccessful experiment. He shows that parents fail to distinguish between twin children, and it thus happens that the good twin receives the chastisement whicb the bad one deserves, while the latter is rewarded with undeserved sugar-plums. Thus the moral sense is injuriously affected and the fact is tbat punishment falling on the just and the unjust twin without apparent discrimination, they are led to ignore the distinction between right and , wrong, He gives numerous other instances of the complications to which twins-fre-quently give rise, hut the most reoiarfcable and painful of -them all, is the fact, as asserted by him, that twins are t fre-: quently changed in the, bath. For< example, twin brothers, who, while dressed in different colored garmentt ara quite, distinguishable;: may exactly resemble oue another when undressed -and made ready for the^bath tub. ; \VJhile in this' undistinauishable condition they may easily be changed. The twin who entered the batb-tub as John,; may issue from it as James, and the orignal James may be unintentionally transformed into John. This accident is liable to occur at any successive bathing ceremony, and the result of, this perpetual idenity upon the minds of the unhappy twins must be extremely confusing. Such makeshifts as the tying of ribbons of different colors about each twin cannot be safely depended upon. Nurses will often remove tbe3e ribbons and replace them on the wrong twin. In fact until a twin reaches the age of self-washing he never can be sure of hiß identity, and it is not even certain whether it ia safe for twins at any age to bathe together without first carefully labelling themselves and making sure thnt they do not unintentionally change cloihes at the end of their bath. A more melancholy spectacle can hardly be imagined than that of twin brothers, who by superhuman exertion" had been kept unchanged during their early years, but who incautioualy bathed together at Long Branch on arriving at manhood, and accidentally changing their clothing, suffered a sea change, of which even they themselves were unconscious.

Considering the danger of such a dreadful possibility, Mr Galton is quite right in disapproving of twins. It is clear that the less we hear of them the better. Nothing is gained by dividing one good substantial child into two equal parts. Parents who fancy that a pair of twins really constitutes a larger family than one child are as much mistaken as they would be if they supposed that two pints really amounted to more thnn od6 quart. At least such is the result of Mr Galton's investigations, since he is of opinion that a pair of twins is |oothing more than the same eliild put up in two packages. These may uot have been Mrs Gamp's views and it is to be regretted that she is not here to express her estimate of them. Whether she should agree with' them or not, it is, however, certain that she couhi not fail to recognise the boldness with which Mr Galton has answered the demand which she sarcastically made upon Mr Chuffey, and has actually given the world his opinion of twins.

4024