VII - REPORT: Korean researchers discovered the 'Suwon crease', only observed in males!

Lynn wrote:hi Patti, I am not sure they are describing the same thing as the Suwon? Aren't they talking about sydney line + (some form of )heart line, OR straight heartline that extends fully across the hand with (some form of) head line??

Lynn wrote:Phew that took some reading! Page 7 already!! this one could run & run!
I love these "thinking out loud till I've understood it" discussions, reminds me of 'tented arch' discussion on Sue's forum, and hand developement on the old cybercafe!

I'm still not sure I've understood the criteria of this line correctly.
In the example from the study, II & III curves down to meet accessory II (NB. tho I still regard accessory II as the main headline, and the bit that joins heartline as the accessory)
but in Martijn's first example on Page1, the Suwon does not curve down to headline.
So, risking being shot down in flames..... are these Suwon lines? (I think right hand could be, but on LH can't be sure what's going on where fate line meets heartline - is it a Suwon or a complete transverse heartline with "ambitious" fate line?)

Hi Lynn,

Great to see you sharing those examples... I say: I see two 'Suwon creases'!!

By the way, I can understand where Patti's argument comes from... but beyond the "II+III plus accessory II" description the researchers by fact did not describe any additional specific requirement for recognizing a 'Suwon crease'. They only describe how to descriminate the 'major lines' from the 'minor' lines!!

So, I see no reason at all to ASSUME (like Patti did) that a 'Suwon crease' really requires the presence of a head line which is connected to the life line.

And after saying this... I think you already understood that you should also not 'worry' about whether a 'Suwon crease' is curving down or not.


Once again, let's it keep it simple:

Really, the researchers' definition of the 'Suwon crease' is this formula only:
"II+III plus accessory II"

'Capice?'


PS. EDIT: Patti's reference to the 'strict criteria' described by the researchers... only relates to how to discriminate the 'minor lines' from the 'major lines'. Byeond their formular, the researches have made no additonal specification at all for the 'Suwon crease'.

Felicity Martin wrote:Oh dear, my understanding after a clarification from Martjin was it was when the additional headline runs and joins the heart line...
Felicity

Martijn (admin) wrote:
By the way, I can understand where Patti's argument comes from... but beyond the "II+III plus accessory II" description the researchers by fact did not describe any additional specific requirement for recognizing a 'Suwon crease'. They only describe how to descriminate the 'major lines' from the 'minor' lines!!

So, I see no reason at all to ASSUME (like Patti did) that a 'Suwon crease' really requires the presence of a head line which is connected to the life line.

And after saying this... I think you already understood that you should also not 'worry' about whether a 'Suwon crease' is curving down or not.


Once again, let's it keep it simple:

Really, the researchers' definition of the 'Suwon crease' is this formula only:
"II+III plus accessory II"

'Capice?' [/color]

Patti wrote:In "Dermatoglyphics, Science in Transition" (Plato, Garruto & Schaumann 1991)(page 231) they make reference to this crease.

"On occasion, one encounters an erroneous classification of a "simian" crease on a palm with either the proximal or the distal crease extending across the whole width of the palm in the presence of the other crease. These variations have been illustrated by Leiber*. One of them, the extension of the proximal transverse crease to the ulnar margin of the palm, with persisting distal transverse crease, is also known as a Sydney line and should definitely not be confused with the single transverse crease."

Obviously the Korean researchers missed Leiber's illustrations and overlooked Plato's books as well. This crease was identified 50 years ago and mentioned in this book 20 years ago!

*Leiber B.: Zur sytematik und klinischen Bedeutung des menschlichen Handfurchenbildes. Z Menschl Vererb Konstitutional 35:205-232, 1960 (okay, I now see why the Koreans may have missed Leiber's report)
Is this German, Swedish?
Can someone translate?

<edit> The quote above in purple is from the above mentioned book, but I forgot to mention that this chapter is called "Flexion Creases" and is written by S. Kimura and B. Schaumann.

Lynn wrote:hi Patti, I am not sure they (in your above post) are describing the same thing as the Suwon? Aren't they talking about sydney line + (some form of )heart line, OR straight heartline that extends fully across the hand with (some form of) head line??

Sorry Patti... but Lynn's feedback is 'spot-on'!

The researchers are only talking about:

".. either the proximal or the distal crease extending across the whole width of the palm .. "

I think this is a clear example that you're jumping into delusional conclusions... while the words tell a COMPLETELY different story:

The purple words from "Dermatoglyphics, Science in Transition" only relate to a Sydney line + transversal heart line... but you already concluded that the Korean researchers did not do their homework properly!!


Remember when I talked about 'out-of-context' conclusions? Though, this is probably the most explicite example so far in this discussion.

Patti wrote:


Have you just dismissed the entire report?

Of course not!

(I hope you noticed that I added an extra comment: see the 'edit'!)

Felicity Martin wrote:Oh dear, my understanding after a clarification from Martjin was it was when the additional headline runs and joins the heart line...
Felicity

Lynn wrote:

Felicity Martin wrote:Oh dear, my understanding after a clarification from Martjin was it was when the additional headline runs and joins the heart line...
Felicity

yes, isn't it?

Hi Felicity, I asume that you tried to describe in your comment the basic characteristic of a 'Suwon crease'?

If so, then I can confirm Lynn's feedback... though I would like to add that the combination of the heart line and the 'additional head line' should make a constellation that overlaps the full palm.


Anyway, the following picture describes the basic concept of the 'Suwon crease':

Once again, let's it keep it simple:

Really, the researchers' definition of the 'Suwon crease' is this formula only:
"II+III plus accessory II"

'Capice?' lol!

Patti wrote:By the way, if it's just II + III with accessory II - then why all the rejections of the samples?

Patti, please specify... are you referring to your 'splitting heart lines' examples???


PS. Your comment 'style' was indeed not very respectful at all... but no big deal about that! (I am glad you noticed that!)

PPS. And I hope you also notice that I confirmed Lynn's feedback on your quote from the other scientific sources... I think it is very obvious that you made a mistake to associated that quote with the 'Suwon crease'.

Patti wrote:
Don't bother answering. I can see you are "fixed" in your positions and are no longer clear yourself on what details a Suwon crease.

PS. Patti, this comment is not much more than a 'perception'. But you're welcome to substantiate exactly what you have in mind!


(If you prefer not to respond to this invitation... than your quoted words certainly didn't add anything to the quality of this discussion - ?)

Patti wrote:
Regarding my last sample. When I zoom the image, I can see the creases are very finely overlapping and not merging. Perhaps the researchers would eliminate that sample, too. They don't mention overlapping. I've seen many simian and Sydney creases that have this fine overlapping.

(Almost ready... but her's a little more 'unfinished business' from earlier in this discussion)


Dear Patti,


First of all... thank you for (finally ) answering my question!


Second, haven't you noticed that you have been in a constant process of 'flip-flopping' in this discussion?

JUST AN EXAMPLE:

Regarding my female-cases... first you rejected that one, then you accepted it, then you rejected it again, and finally you presented the suggestion to call it 'partial Suwon crease'.



And so, now you left me wondering... is you offer to 'agree that we disagree' still up-to-date???


Sorry Patti, while you think that I have 'fixed' believes... my problem is basically that I can not relate to your approach: in your comments you only focuss on (isolated) minor details in the examples that we discussed.

Andactually... I think this even explains your constant process of 'flip-flopping' in this discussion!!


Finallly for today, I will now share my perception regarding your last example...

Regarding your last sample: you used an 'overlapping' as an argument to conclude that there must me a meeting of two different lines.

But I would like to point out that this is basically only a relatively normal tendency to be in a heart line. And as a matter of fact: I can point in that heartline at three other likewise locations where overlapping/merging is seen: see the picture below.



So, basically... I don't understand how you can use only one of those 'overlappings' in this heart line as an argument to conclude that this is 'Suwon crease'!?

And after making this observation... I am wondering: how could anybody accept such an answer as a 'balanced' argument to call this example a 'Suwon crease'???


Patti, if others would start adopting your focuss on (isolated) minor details.... then I am sure one could find arguments for EACH SINGLE EXAMPLE of the true 'Suwon creases' that we have seen so far in this discussion: let's say... the ones about where we agreed at some moment in time: for you are constantly 'flip-flopping'... because you just also made a statement that sort of was an rejection my first male-example!!

And I am sure ... with your method one could even find arguments to reject the single example presented by the researches!!


After all... let's not forget that our early considerations have shown that even with the researcher's example (+ combined with the descriptions in their article) it took quite a lot of efforts to understand & describe the concept behind the researchers' discovery!

We only have their formula: 'II+III plus accessory II'

Because their 'strict' criteria provide no additional specifications regarding the Suwon crease. Basically these only describe how to recognize the difference between 'major lines' and 'minor lines'... and yes of courese we MUST apply them on the Suwon crease as well.

But these have no implications at all regarding the starting point of the 'accessory II' line.

Lynn wrote:Martijn said

Once again, let's it keep it simple:

Really, the researchers' definition of the 'Suwon crease' is this formula only:
"II+III plus accessory II"

'Capice?' lol!

Martijn, thanks for making me laugh with 'Capice?' Your reply reminds me of a business course I attended in 1996, their key word was K.I.S.S.
= "keep it simple stupid"
Unfortunately I don't always follow that advice and tend to make things too complicated!

Thanks Lynn,

Obviously, yes it is a complex issue... because recognizing a 'Suwon crease' requires to take quite a few aspects of the major lines in consideraton.

However, at the end one can also describe very simple with the researchers' formula:

Suwon crease = 'II+III plus accessory II'

Sounds it bit like E = mc² ... doesn't it?

But basically... ... the 'process' in this discussion makes it look like even more complex than it really is!!

Martijn (admin) wrote:However, at the end one can also describe very simple with the researchers' formula:

Suwon crease = 'II+III plus accessory II'

Sounds it bit like E = mc² ... doesn't it?

But basically... ... the 'process' in this discussion makes it look like even more complex than it really is!!

[/color]

Lynn wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:However, at the end one can also describe very simple with the researchers' formula:

Suwon crease = 'II+III plus accessory II'

Sounds it bit like E = mc² ... doesn't it?

But basically... ... the 'process' in this discussion makes it look like even more complex than it really is!!

[/color]

Still I prefer to see it as III + accessory II plus II.
At last I've printed out the report & hope to read it all more in depth tomorrow. (Patti re fig 7 etc)

Hi Lynn,

You're right: basically I have the same preference... but I thought it would be less confusing to simply follow the vocabulary of the researchers!?

I hope this makes sense, and thank you for pointing that out.

Patti wrote:
Also, I do think, for sure that Plato's book is referring to the Suwon crease, of course not by that name. They are describing two types of II + III that are not simian. The one involving the head line was already described as the Sydney crease.

Patti, obviously in Plato's book the two variants mentioned do not refer to a 'II + III' line at all... there is not even a single 'suggestion' which could relate your quote to the 'Suwon crease'. But you made the connection somehow... even after re-reading.

Sorry, I think it is only very obviously that the words 'either' and 'or' in the your quote clearly refer only to the two relatively well-known variants: the Sydney line + the complete transversal heart line (and I hope you now recognize as well that both of these lines are no 'II + III' lines at all):

".. one encounters an erroneous classification of a "simian" crease on a palm with either the proximal or the distal crease extending across the whole .. "

And what the researchers describe here perfectly makes sense: because many inexperienced people who are confronted with a Sydney line... make the mistake to assume that it concerns a simian line. That is the only 'message' described by this quote!


Additionally... for sure, Leiber's charts do not describe any variant that relates to the complex 'Suwon crease' either. Not in chart A, nor chart B, and not even in their third chart AB.

Here's a link to the proof regarding Leiber's charts (pages 133, 134 and 135):
Anthropology of Crease Morphogenesis


REGARDING YOUR CONCLUSION...

Patti, your conclusion that the 'Suwon crease' (or a likewise complex crease variant) was already described by other researchers... is not true.

I am sorry, you simply mis-read your quote!


PS No big deal, it can happen to anyone...

Patti wrote:Also, I do think, for sure that Plato's book is referring to the Suwon crease, of course not by that name. They are describing two types of II + III that are not simian. The one involving the head line was already described as the Sydney crease.

I have found Leiber's charts. Bali & Chaube say it's "comprehensive enough to accommodate all crease types in its fold." Beginning on Page 131 of "Anthropology of Crease Morphogenesis"

Patti wrote:
"On occasion, one encounters an erroneous classification of a "simian" crease on a palm with either the proximal or the distal crease extending across the whole width of the palm in the presence of the other crease. These variations have been illustrated by Leiber*. One of them, the extension of the proximal transverse crease to the ulnar margin of the palm, with persisting distal transverse crease, is also known as a Sydney line and should definitely not be confused with the single transverse crease."

Obviously the Korean researchers missed Leiber's illustrations and overlooked Plato's books as well. This crease was identified 50 years ago and mentioned in this book 20 years ago!

Lynn wrote: (regarding the sample I posted)

Patti wrote: The left hand is interesting as the head line is fragmented and doesn't start close enough to the radial edge of the palm. (the article refers to a common starting point and this head line doesn't start at that, as they say, "constant" starting point.

Thanks for feedback Patti. I briefly read some of the article when Martijn first posted it, but didn't digest it, so wasn't aware of the 'common starting point' and didn't take into consideration that the start of his main headline is missing on LH.

Lynn wrote:
Hi Patti, Having read it all again, I don't understand how you reach the conclusion that Plato's book is referring to the Suwon.

...

The quote is saying that sometimes the Sydney line or a complete transversal heart line are erroneously classified as Simian lines. But they are not Simians due to the presence of the other (heart or head) crease. I looked at Leiber's illustrations and I don't see anything that resembles a Suwon crease.

Patti wrote:Regarding the branching of the heartline in the sample Martijn, I'm not sure why you are mentioning these as disqualifying factors.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:In "Dermatoglyphics, Science in Transition" (Plato, Garruto & Schaumann 1991)(page 231) they make reference to this crease.

"On occasion, one encounters an erroneous classification of a "simian" crease on a palm with either the proximal or the distal crease extending across the whole width of the palm in the presence of the other crease.[/b] These variations have been illustrated by Leiber*. One of them, the extension of the proximal transverse crease to the ulnar margin of the palm, with persisting distal transverse crease, is also known as a Sydney line and should definitely not be confused with the single transverse crease."[/size]

Obviously the Korean researchers missed Leiber's illustrations and overlooked Plato's books as well. This crease was identified 50 years ago and mentioned in this book 20 years ago!

*Leiber B.: Zur sytematik und klinischen Bedeutung des menschlichen Handfurchenbildes. Z Menschl Vererb Konstitutional 35:205-232, 1960 (okay, I now see why the Koreans may have missed Leiber's report)
Is this German, Swedish?
Can someone translate?

<edit> The quote above in purple is from the above mentioned book, but I forgot to mention that this chapter is called "Flexion Creases" and is written by S. Kimura and B. Schaumann.

Lynn wrote:hi Patti, I am not sure they (in your above post) are describing the same thing as the Suwon? Aren't they talking about sydney line + (some form of )heart line, OR straight heartline that extends fully across the hand with (some form of) head line??

Sorry Patti... but Lynn's feedback is 'spot-on'!

The researchers are only talking about:

".. either the proximal or the distal crease extending across the whole width of the palm .. "I think this is a clear example that you're jumping into delusional conclusions... while the words tell a COMPLETELY different story:

The purple words from "Dermatoglyphics, Science in Transition" only relate to a Sydney line + transversal heart line... but you already concluded that the Korean researchers did not do their homework properly!!


Remember when I talked about 'out-of-context' conclusions? Though, this is probably the most explicite example so far in this discussion.

Patti wrote:To paraphase the quote as I understand it:

Sometimes a simian crease, or crease that crosses the palm entirely, is classified in error. This is when either the proximal (head line) or distal (heart line) crease extends across the whole width of the palm and there is also the "other" crease. In other words, a head line extending all the way across the palm and there is also present a heart line. Or, a heart line extending all the way across the palm and a head line is present. They go on to describe and name one sample (the Sydney line) but do not name or further describe the other crease. Which is now of course the Suwon crease.

It's that simple. I don't understand the objections.

Patti wrote:
To paraphase the quote as I understand it:

Sometimes a simian crease, or crease that crosses the palm entirely, is classified in error. This is when either the proximal (head line) or distal (heart line) crease extends across the whole width of the palm in the presence of the other crease.

Hi Patti,

Thanks for explaining how you read the quote!!

I agree with Lynn's response:
We can easily agree regarding the first part of your thouhts (see the quote above).


Patti, after reading the 2nd part of your comment... it is now very clear for me that our disagreement is a direct result of how you interpretated the words 'the other crease'.

(edit: I just noticed that Lynn described this point as well in her feedback!)

I'll explain this with a few more details:

'The other crease'... refers ONLY to the other normal crease that is featured with the two complete transal lines involved:
1 - in the perspective of the proximal crease extending across the whole width of the palm (= Sydney line): 'the other crease' = the (normal) heart line;
2 - and in the perspective of the distal crease extending across the whole width of the palm 'the other crease' = the (normal) head line.

This is explicitely described in that quote - but you made a completely different association... you assumed that 'the other crease' could refer to the 'Suwon crease', but that is simply a mistake: because the sentence obviously describes how 'the other crease' relates to both 'complete transversal lines'.

But actually, I can even agree with you about a large part of the 2nd part of your comment (the first 3 sentences, but not the red 4th sentence - just like Lynn described!). See below:

Patti wrote:
In other words, a head line extending all the way across the palm and there is also present a heart line. Or, a heart line extending all the way across the palm and a head line is present. They go on to describe and name one sample (the Sydney line) but do not name or further describe the other crease. Which is now of course the Suwon crease.

It's that simple. I don't understand the objections.

Patti, my explanation above should make it quite easy for you to understand why Lynn and I can not confirm your conclusion.

(Again, simply because you incorrectly associated 'the other crease'... with the 'Suwon crease'.)


By the way, can I ask one more question?

I wonder: do we agree, that a 'Suwon crease' should not be described as:

"A 'splitting' distal crease, of which one 'splitting' is extending across the whole width of the palm"


PS. I hope we agree on this, because a 'Suwon crease' really requires that an "extra line" is involved; while a 'splitting' distal crease basically does not have this "extra line".