# Clementine, Lavender, Catherine all got axed

So ,I have not been active here in a very long time! But I am pregnant again. Yay!

No matter the gender, the second middle name will be Strong in honor of some very special friends (elderly couple with no grandkids, their last name. I cannot find a great way to use Wanda and his name is a shortened version of my own - Jess/Jessica)

We finally agreed ona boys name - Sullivan Levi Strong. All fine and good. Though I am very certain it is girl and we will nt be using the name :)

For girls I am stumped. I am in LOVE with Pearl and Olive. But they are my twin names and I cannot use just one. Further Dh says they are not big enough. Although if we had twins he would consider it.

We previously said we would name the next girl Margaret. But it is just not singing to me or him. But neither is any other name.

Our boys are George Oliver Lloyd and Gilead Michael Alan. Lloyd is a grand parent, Michael is dh, Alan is a grandparents middle name. had either one been a girl she would have been Catherine Maria Claire.

We had earlier agreed that if this baby is a girl we would name her Clementine. Then I was playing with middle names and realized that it rhymes with our last name. Ugh. so cannot do that! -tine

I really like and dhwould consider Lavender but it is a stutter with our last name. Ders-

So, do you have any good suggestions?

Thu, 03/20/2014 - 7:03pm

## Replies

How are you going to feel if you never have twin girls? Will you regret not using either Pearl or Olive?

If you are dead set on Pearl for a twin, that would nix Margaret for me as a sister since Margaret means "pearl".

Other ideas (since you like long ones):

Josephine, Evangeline (with the -een ending), Alexandra, Bernadette, Cassandra, Charlotte, Francesca, Genevieve, Jacqueline, Penelope, Thomasina, Theodora, Veronica, Victoria.

It seems to me that you like girls' names with a "hard" consonant in them which I tried to choose some that had similar "feels" to them. Theodora adn Charlotte seem the "softest" to me of these.

Any help?

I do tend to like harder consonants. Which is often awkward with our last name - very hard consanant heavy. (the whole thing is up there ^^ just split...)

I am nixing G/J names. We fostered a child with a J name that had alliteration with Gilead's name. NO ONE got called the right name. :( Otherwise josephine would be a maybe option. I like Evangeline, but Dh says no. Alexandra SameLastName is taken. Penelope is seomthign I like but Dh says no. Bernadette I love bc of soemone I know. But I a not sure I could use it as a first name.

Since both your boys are G names but your twins names are not does that rule out G names for this girl?

The 2 G names was not intentional and did not bother me bc tehy are J/G sounds. But I have a lame tongue and cannot do more of them.

I am a bit confused. George and Gilead begin with the same letter, which does indeed betoken two different sounds in the two names. However, above you say that there was confusion: "We fostered a child with a J name that had alliteration with Gilead's name." I can't think of a name spelled with J that would have an alliterative sound with Gilead. I am curious as to the nature of the problem. Of course, a J-name would have the same initial sound as George....

Julia, George and Gilead became a tongue twister.

Unless you are planning on implanting multiple female embryos via IVF, I would go with Pearl or Olive. The odds of having twins are low, girl-girl twins are even lower.

Yup, I agree with this. I'd also go a step farther and say, since you've already used Oliver as a middle for one of your boys, that actually would rule out Olive for me in any case. So Pearl is my vote.

Actually odds of me having twins is pretty high.

I am going into this with twin names just in case.

Even if you do get pregnant with twins, the chances they would be girl-girl is only 25%. But, save the names if you want.

Actually, it's 25% if she knows for certain the twins are fraternal. If there would be a possibility of identical twins, the chance of both being girls (or boys) goes up to 33.33%. Still not great odds, but just sayin!

Identical twins, do increase the odds of them being girl-girl, but identical twinning is a random event whose odds can't be increased or decreased (well, I think I read that IVF can increase the odds by 1 or 2% for unknown reasons).

What does it being a random event have to do with it? She still doesn't know if they would be fraternal or identical & thus still has a greater % chance of g/g twins. Also fraternal twins are a random event as well.

But the rate of identical twinning is very low, about 1 in 285, and identical twinning is totally random—it doesn't run in families the way fraternal twins do. The increased rate of twinning from IVF is also only fraternal twins. So the overall probability would still be close to 25%, since the additional chance of identical twins is pretty much negligible.

Put another way, fraternal twins account for about 90% of twin births. So even if you already *know* that you are pregnant with twins, there is still only a 1 in 10 chance that they are identical. My math skills are a little rusty, but my calculations are:

[0.1 (odds of twins being identical) x 0.5 (odds of identical twins being girls)] + [0.9 (odds of twins being fraternal) x 0.25 (odds of fraternal twins being girls)] = 0.275, or in other words, the overall odds of both twins being girls are 27.5%.

Twinning from IVF does not result in

onlyfraternal twins. Identical twins come from IVF as well.Your logic is flawed - you should not calculate using 90% of twin births are fraternal twins. You should calculate using the probability within the general population that fraternal twins occur. Then also, as an independent event, the probability within the general population that identical twins occur. And then add those together to get your true probability of g/g twins in an individual pregnancy.

Probability of twins in the general population will vary by source, but if we assume there is a probability of 8/1000 for fraternal twins and a probability of 3/1000 for identical twins (conservative estimates), then using the formula:

((2*Probability of Identical Twins) + Probability of Fraternal Twins) / (4*(Probability of Identical Twins + Probability of Fraternal Twins)) = (0.006+0.008)/(0.044) = 0.3181 or 31.81%

I'm not actually sure you SHOULD use the gen pop number, since a tendency to have fraternal twins is a known heritable tendency. If someone's in a family where fraternal twins run, their odds are not going to be the same as the odds of the general population.

I don't think that matters. The general population numbers will still reflect your overall odds. The heritability factor is intrinsic in the #...

I've never seen so many people fixated on the fact that there is a heritable factor in having fraternal twins. I don't think the heritability issue plays that big of a role tbh. Also, the heritability factor is still not going to impact the sex of the twins.

Except that "general population" is "everyone, including people with no familial history of twinning". The twinning rate in women with a maternal-side history of fraternal twinning in non-fertility-medicine-assisted pregnancies *is not the same as the rate in the general population*.

The general population is still going to be the most realistic estimate of your probability.

But, if you're that worried about it - comb through data of # of twin pregnancies resulting from IVF out of total # of IVF pregnancies as a whole.. and then figure out which were fraternal vs. identical.. and THEN.. figure out probability of each and subtract from general population probability.

I'm not doing all of that.. plus the accuracy of it all would be very small, even if you could find acceptable data (which I don't think there is any acceptable data).

I didn't say that twinning in IV results in only fraternal twins. I said that the increase in twinning from IVF is fraternal twins. While there is some evidence that the odds of identical twinning is increased as well, it's still a very low number, and outside your control (whereas you can choose to implant two embryos and increase the odds of fraternal twins).

I did calculate using the probability in the general population. Identical twins = 3 in 1000. Fraternal, there are a lot of factors that influence it including ethnic background, maternal age and genetics, but the most recent general estimate I've found for the U.S. is 32.5 per 1000 (not sure where you got that 8/1000 figure). Doing the math, that means 35.5 twin births per 1000, 3 of which are identical; 35.5/3 = 0.1183, or 11.83%. I rounded to 10% to simplify the math. My example was not in an individual preganncy, but one in which you already know you are pregnant with twins—you just don't know the sex or whether they are identical/fraternal. So can you explain to me why my logic is flawed?

I also don't understand how you're deriving your formula. If you want to calculate the probability of girl/girl twins in an individual pregnancy going with the 8/1000 (0.008) figure for fraternal twins and 3/1000 for identical (0.003), you would calculate (0.008 x .25) + (0.003 x .5) = 0.0035, or 0.35%.

Going with my number of 32.5 in 1000, it would be (0.032 x .25) + (0.003 x .5) = .0095, or 0.95%.

Well, common sense alone should tell you that formula isn't right. You're getting that <1% of all twins are girl/girl twins..

We agree there is: 50% chance of g/g (or b/b) identical twins

But, you have to also calculate the probability that these twins will be identical. Which is: Probability of Identical Twins / Probability of Fraternal OR Identical Twins. Converting the 50% chance of g/g identical twins to a fraction of 2/4, & adding it to the probability of identical twins you get: (2 * Probability of Identical Twin)/(4* Probability of Fraternal OR Identical Twins.)

We also agree there is: 25% chance of g/g fraternal twins

so, again you have to account for the probability that the twins will be fraternal, which is: Probability of Fraternal Twins/ Probability of Fraternal OR Identical Twins. Converting 25% to 1/4, you get: (1 * Probability of Fraternal Twin)/(4* Probability of Fraternal OR Identical Twins)

You then have to add these together to find overall chance:

Using I = Probability of Identical Twin, F= Probability of Fraternal Twin, & T= Probability of Fraternal OR Identical Twins

[2I/(4T)] + [F/(4T)] = [(2I + F)/(4T)]

My calculation that resulted in 0.35% was the probability that *any given pregnancy* would result in girl/girl twins. Not the overall percentage of girl/girl twins.

I see what you are doing with your formula now, and using the 3.25/1000 figure for fraternal twins, I'm still getting a similar result to the 27.5% figure I calculated earlier (a little off because I was rounding).

I realize I did make a stupid mistake in the math earlier, but it didn't leave me far off. The odds of identical twins in a *confirmed twin pregnancy* still round to about 10%. 3/1000 + 32.5/1000 = 35.5/1000 (total probability of twins), and solving for 3/35.5 = x/100, x = 8.45, so probability of a twin pregnancy being identical = 8.45%.

I'm still interested in knowing where you found the 8/1000 figure for fraternal twins.

I agree with this! Everyone else is correct that the odds of twins are pretty low, unless you're using assisted reproductive technologies (like injectables fertility medications) that can dramatically increase the rate of twins. (If you are using IVF, I think one of the great plusses to this technology is its potential to have a LOW twin rate -- if you transfer a single embryo, you only have around a 1-2% chance of twins, resulting from identical twinning -- it's hard to get an exact figure, since it varies by lab and techniques. Previous posters are correct that the rate of identical twins is higher for IVF than for babies conceived the old fashioned way, especially when it's IVF using blastocyst culture, but it's still a rare event.) I also want to add that twins are not really considered a desirable outcome from a fertility treatment point of view -- the radio show Creating a Family has had a good episode on that. If one knows the sex of embryos, one probably also knows their chromosome counts are normal, and then it's really a prudent idea to transfer one at a time.

I am going to add to the stats discussion that the sex ratio isn't actually 50/50, it's more like 51.5% male, 48.5% female, so girl/girl twins aren't really 25% of fraternal twins, more like 23.5%... and they're 48.5% of identical twins.

Anyway, I would use Pearl if it's the name you love most, and try to consider it as a name that you might enjoy outside of a twinset. Does it help to consider a potential future younger sister and think about a set in that sense? I agree that Clementine is out if your surname ends in a -tine sound, because no matter how many middle names go in the middle, they won't be used most of the time... and I think Lavendar Der- is also a dealbreaker for the same reason. Catherine would work nicely - is the problem just that it's been on your list so long that you've lost that shiny new feeling? If so, would coming up with some new nicknames perhaps freshen the name for you?

You love Pearl...so use it :) It is beautiful, and would be a shame never to be used because your waiting for twin girls. Also as Pp said, Olive for me is out because of Oliver x

So, how do I explain this... Pearl and Olive are a set in my mind. Dh was concerned about using Olive bc of Oliver. It does not bother me. Am I crazy?

I am not sure I can convince dh of Pearl for asingleton.

we have considered Beatrice, Violet, Esme, Frances, Florence,

The currewnt highest contender is Scarlett, but it does nto feel right for this baby...

Dh sys no to Alice, Delphine, Elizabeth,

Just to be clear; are you looking for a fn and mn to go along with 2nd mn Strong? So this means that any of the names that are out of contention could not be the first middle? So fn Margaret Strong ln or fn Catherine Strong ln is out? Since you are using Strong as an honor name, does that mean that family names are not - should I say do not have to be used since your sons' have family names - you are as close to the Strong's as family and that IS the family honor name? Are Maria and Claire also out? Both, especially Claire sounds like a nice first mn to me.

Too bad about Margaret - Margaret Catherine/ or Claire Strong ln has a good ring to me. Also if Lavender were used as the first middle, would it really stutter with ln when using full name - Strong coming before last?

You like classics like Margaret and Catherine and Olive and Pearl- just to through another oldie but goodie out there - Elizabeth Lavender Strong. Or Louise Lavender Strong (I've been trying to get someone to name a child Louise or Louisa for weeks! Vicariously naming kids, I guess. I have none of my own and I'm pretty sure "my last egg has dropped"!)

Out of my hat:

Eleanor mn Strong

Abigail mn Strong

Vivian mn Strong

Bridget mn Strong

Good luck!

Some suggestions for you... Eleanor, Luciah or Lucia, Hannah, Sarah, Elizabeth, Isabelle, Kaitlyn, Naomi, Mariah, Karen, Lauren, Lucille, Kate, Jasmine, Rose, Jessamine, Hyacinth, Ruby, Sapphire, Emerald, Opal, Fleur, Felicity, Josephine, Susannah, Lillian, Lillia, Lilias, Beatrice, Eugenie, Olivia, Chloe, Sophia or Sophie/Sophy, Elena, Renee, Esmee, Amy, Abigail.

Have you ever considered Martha or Agnes? Either one fits well with your boys and your surname, but without any chance of confusion. I do like Margaret, by the way; maybe it'll start singing once you've put it on the back burner for a bit?

I would consider using Catherine as a mn.

I would consider Maragret for a mn.

I had not considered Lavender as mn... hmmm.

Cannot use Louise.

I mostly need first name ideas. The middle names will come.

I might just have to out this back on the back burner. But eventually this baby will be born and so help me if it has no name. :D

Whether used as a first or middle name, Margaret is a nod to my mom. She used a version of her first name as one of my middles. I plan to use a version of her second name to name my own daughter.

I definitely lean toward classics.

I am 22 weeks. I have never had such a hard time connecting with my in utero baby. I think I am just going to let this name thing sit again. Eventually we will find the right one. And I guess ifg we get eot birth and have a list of options I can gind out how people name a chld based on what they look like - which I have never understood...

.

O people! :) I am lost in your numbers. But , enjoy! :D

Let me tell you a story. There are 27 first cousins. Not all have children. Amongst them, they have produced 8 sets of identical twins and one set of identical triplets. half the twins mama and half the twins papa are in the cousin pool. This is my family.

Yes, it defies all odds and theory and logic and blows plenty of minds.

One day very soon I am having an ultrasound to see just what is up bc there are factors I dont care to reveal here... Mayhaps it shall also make naming easier. ;)

Holy moly! Given that story, I'd ignore all the statistics and assume, as you have, that the likelihood of having twins is high, at least higher than average. I do have a friend who is an identical twin and has identical twins, so my tiny sample suggests that genetics may well play a role. Our understanding of genetics is still in its infancy.