Ok, I have googled with no real luck. I've talked to our pediatrician and she didn't even know that they could be Id's if they didn't share a placenta.
So here's the thing, my DH is convinced they are id. I'm not. The girls are only 2 weeks old and do look a lot alike but so do my older two kids. The twins have the same hands, same very distinct feet, noses and ears and eyes. But one has a birthmark the other doesn't have. I don't think they could be id because of the birthmark. Hubby says that Id's can have small differences like that.
I do NOT want to spend the money on testing if this can be solved by a birthmark...
TIA! Help solve the debate!
I'm mobile bumping, so unfortunately I can't post a pic of the girls.
Re: Identicals?
Thanks ladies!
I don't think most (if any?) birthmarks are caused by genetics; they are something that "happen" for one reason or another rather than something that is part of your looks like eye or hair color, so it is quite possible for one ID twin to have one and the other not to.
Yep, I was the one who posted it heheh. And ditto PPs; birthmarks don't even count as genetic differences. I agree also to wait a bit and if they are still looking super alike, test them.
We waited until our girls were a year to test. I guess I thought they'd start looking different! They do have slight differences that most people (including extended family) don't usually notice. My twin 'B' has always been at least a lb bigger, currently 2 since her sister throws majority of her food on the floor for the dog!
I agree with waiting a little longer. They are so tiny it's really hard to tell now! GL!