twins or not?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/...p;in_page_id=1770

in my eyes, theyre still twins, ok so they had a large gap between conception, but they are still two individual eggs fertilised in the same womb making them twins, i even asked my uncle who's a doctor lol he said the same thing.

they were born the same day - so to me,id see them as twins... now if she went full term with one and then full term with the other - thats adiferent storey! but to me... theyre twins!

it doesnt say tho wether they started of as triplets and that the 3rd wasnt picked up! it just says they noticed another baby!

i think they were sure one was fertilised 3 weeks later etc, so i doubt they could be triplets

I dont think they are twins. 1 baby went to full term and the other born 3 weeks early. Yes they same the same birthday but conception time was different (which is the case of twins- either identical of non identical happens at the same time)

I suppose it would be easier to just say they were twins but I kind of get what Alex is saying too. I've heard stories about twins that are actually born weeks apart and they are still classed as twins because they were concieved at the same time.

i'm not sure at all lol, i know that 'twins' can be conceived at different times, it's just when you release two eggs and they both get fertilised, theres no time limit set, i guess it's just when they are both released on the same cycle, rather than this instance where it was two independant cycles

i wouldnt say they were twins they are 3 weeks apart even though they were born on the same day.

its just a quirk of nature