What happened with this fetus? (From an 18th-century letter.)

[Speaker_for_the_Dead]

My friend is working on a database of letters written to and from an English doctor in the 1700s. On occasion, when he comes across something that’s really bizarre, I get to take a crack at it. But this doesn’t mean anything to me:

@Letter Writer

The fetus was preserved in water for Richardson; when he first saw it, he thought it was a mole; it was oval, and much harder than he expected when pressed with a finger. He cut the outside membrane open with some difficulty, finding inside pellucid water and an embryo as well-formed as expected at this stage. The membrane surrounding the baby was red on the outside, and white within; it was cartiligious in structure.

Any ideas what this fetus’s problem was?

[brossa]

More details would help, if you have them: was this the product of a normal delivery or of an autopsy on a pregnant woman? Any details about the pregnancy or mother? The ‘mole’ remark likely is referring to a molar pregnancy

[Kurtillius]

Unfortunately, that’s almost the entirety of the text – I really only changed the tense so that it would make sense in the database I was entering it into. But I can fill you in on some of the details leading up to this; the woman was 7 months pregnant, and had previously miscarried on a number of occasions. She was in intense pain for 3 days before she finally gave birth to this bizarre fetus.

Oddly, a day after the doctor (Richard Richardson; best name ever) examined this fetus, the woman gave birth to another one, even bigger than this.

[Nametag]

Well, the molar pregnancy part sounds right. The actual finding appears to be an embryo or fetus with abnormally thick and tough amniotic membrane. The normal membrane is composed of cells in a matrix of collagen, keratin, and other structural protein. The abnormal proliferation of these extracellular components would result in exactly the appearance described by Dr. Richardson.

IANAD, however, so I have never seen anything like it, and I can find no reference in the Google-able Web to anything like it.

[NinetyWt]

@Kurtillius

Oddly, a day after the doctor (Richard Richardson; best name ever) examined this fetus, the woman gave birth to another one, even bigger than this.

That sounds like the partial mole with a twin pregnancy from brossa’s link:

Partial Mole
This most frequently occurs when two sperm fertilize the same egg. There may be partial placentas, membranes or even a fetus present in a partial mole. However, there are usually genetic problems with the baby. Rarely, a partial mole will exist with twin pregnancy, however, the other twin rarely survives.

(bolding mine)

[TruCelt]

Extreme Case of a Stone Baby

My WAG. A stone baby. Because there were two, the lady probably did not realize that the pregnancy had terminated. This one was in the early stages of calcification.

[Kurtillius]

Thanks, guys. Those all sound like possibilities. It’s mostly just good to hear that there are other (somewhat) similar accounts, and to know that the doctor wasn’t just fabricating things to get published in the Philosophical Transactions – these 17th and 18th century doctors have a tendency to exaggerate accounts like this when relating them to their peers.

[Malleus_Incus_Stapes]

@TruCelt

Extreme Case of a Stone Baby

My WAG. A stone baby. Because there were two, the lady probably did not realize that the pregnancy had terminated. This one was in the early stages of calcification.

Wow, that’s really interesting.