Hey Maya. OK I do not know the answer to this, but having recently-ish had a baby I have come across A LOT of babies lately…and I have never ever seen a baby with freckles…therefore I conclude that these develop later. I’ve got loads of freckles and have had since I was quite small…but not newborn
Ooh – interesting question. I’ve never thought of that but on a sample size of 3 (all my own), my data are completely consistent with the idea that babies do not have freckles.
This makes sense since people get freckles upon exposure to the sun. Since I am ginger and rather pale skinned, I get freckles in the sun. I had them on my face when I was younger but not any more – they are mostly on my arms and legs.
Hello, I have a resident dermatologist who sort of like the man from del monte says, ‘yes, sort of’. What we call freckles dermatologists call ‘solar lentigines’ and what we call moles they call ‘naevi’. It is possible for a baby to be born with simple lentigines (non-sun related freckles) and some babies are born with big lentigines called ‘cafe au lait macules’.
Comments
andrewleitch commented on :
Hello, I have a resident dermatologist who sort of like the man from del monte says, ‘yes, sort of’. What we call freckles dermatologists call ‘solar lentigines’ and what we call moles they call ‘naevi’. It is possible for a baby to be born with simple lentigines (non-sun related freckles) and some babies are born with big lentigines called ‘cafe au lait macules’.