Website and Slides showing how to identify Fingerpirnts, Arches, Loop, Peacock, Double loop Whorl, Whorls

Hello all

I found the slides well described.

http://www.slideshare.net/juroc26/fingerprints ( This is general)

1. Loop Patterns
http://www.slideshare.net/juroc26/fingerprint-classification-slide-2

2. Arch, Tented Arch Patterns
http://www.slideshare.net/juroc26/fingerprint-classification-slide-3

3 Peacock, Double loop, Whorl
http://www.slideshare.net/juroc26/whorl-patterns

Overrview

http://www.slideshare.net/heremi/basic-fingerprints-classification-and-analysis

Thanks
Anand

Anand

Thank you much Anand pretty useful stuff

Hello Anand,

Yes, the documents look quite useful - and all three documents appear sort of to represent the approach described in the F.B.I. book, titled: 'The Science of Fingerprints', which is available here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19022/19022-h/19022-h.htm


But I would like to add a word of caution:

Because pictures only are often hard to understand regarding the essentials - though the info displayed appears usually correct.

- However, on page 24 of the second document about ARCHES we are confronted with info that is likely not correct - suggesting that 40% of all arches are 'tented arches' (and 60% 'plain arches').

Because usually the incidence of 'tented arches' is described to be close to 1% of all fingerprints - while about 5% of all fingerprints can be described as 'arches' (= 'tented arches' + 'plain arches'). So, the real percentage for the occurrence of 'tented arches' versus 'plain arches' is usually 20% versus 80%.

- Also, the vocabulary used in the presentation is not explained/defined... so it for sure requires further reading (such as the book 'The Science of Fingerprint') in order to understand all details properly.


Anyway, nice post Anand!

anand_palm wrote:Hello all

I found the slides well described.

http://www.slideshare.net/juroc26/fingerprints ( This is general)

1. Loop Patterns
http://www.slideshare.net/juroc26/fingerprint-classification-slide-2

2. Arch, Tented Arch Patterns
http://www.slideshare.net/juroc26/fingerprint-classification-slide-3

3 Peacock, Double loop, Whorl
http://www.slideshare.net/juroc26/whorl-patterns

Overrview

http://www.slideshare.net/heremi/basic-fingerprints-classification-and-analysis

Thanks
Anand

Good reference Anand! I think this will help people understand how to determine all but the most complex and unusual fingerprints.

Hello all,

Thanks, just for people to get some basics on differentiating, in a slide show it is much easier to go over and look at it rather than reading the complete FBI Book.

Martijn
Ofocurse for more detailing you have to read the FBI book, but that is for people for research, and also the stats which you mentioned does not include lot of thinghs on how much sample have been taken. So i dont hink importance needs to be given. But an quick overiview of how to look for arch, tented arch, loop, accidental, peacock (central pocket loop), Double loop is given in a better way.

Thanks
Anand

anand_palm wrote:Hello all,

Thanks, just for people to get some basics on differentiating, in a slide show it is much easier to go over and look at it rather than reading the complete FBI Book.

Martijn
Ofocurse for more detailing you have to read the FBI book, but that is for people for research, and also the stats which you mentioned does not include lot of thinghs on how much sample have been taken. So i dont hink importance needs to be given. But an quick overiview of how to look for arch, tented arch, loop, accidental, peacock (central pocket loop), Double loop is given in a better way.

Thanks
Anand

Hi Anand,
Yesterday I was thinking about the statistics in regards to some rare fingerprints and how the results gathered in 1905 at Scotland Yards, published in Cummins & Midlo's "Finger Prints Palms & Soles" may no longer be accurate for humans in 2012.

For example, I read hands at 3 events this weekend and I know I saw about 6 or 7 radial loops on the ring fingers. Even more on the middle finger and 1 radial on the little finger and I'd say I read the hands of about 60 to 70 people. The statistics from 1905 show that the radial loop on the ring fingers average between .5% to 1.47%. That's less than 2 in 5,000 pairs of hands. Here I am seeing them at the rate of nearly 10%. So it was a little funny hearing myself tell someone their fingerprint was rare and then see it several more times in these (mostly unrelated) groups of people. There were a few parent and children hands with matching radial prints.

Hello Patti

That is very interesting point which you have observed, especially we are dealing with human population where changes are more frequent,henceforth concluding based on past and historical data may be wrong. Also 60 sample points is good enough to infer.
The data needs to be reevaluated for the next generation people.

Probably you can publish and write a new statistical review for next generation.

Great Work

Anand

anand_palm wrote:Hello Patti

That is very interesting point which you have observed, especially we are dealing with human population where changes are more frequent,henceforth concluding based on past and historical data may be wrong. Also 60 sample points is good enough to infer.
The data needs to be reevaluated for the next generation people.

Probably you can publish and write a new statistical review for next generation.

Great Work

Anand

I won't be working on statistical reviews of my own. I'm more interesting in understanding how they really play out in people's lives and why we are seeing more now. It's a glitch in development. Some glitches lead to evolution.

Hello Patti

It is just an added thingh to your research to validate on the justifaction. Also the concept of rarity is in my perception still a relative measure.

It is interesting you mentioned why you are seeing more now. So probably some environment changes are happening.


Anand

Hello Patti

I have question for you, there are several papers which have collected these statistcal figures on dermatoglyphics, however when you actually collect data you should typically know what goes into making this dermatoglyphics and then typically you go in for collecting, however when i read the research papers only some of them deal with the development aspect, but others just collect and categorize. What i could not find in these papers is a holistic approach, like they just collect fingerprint data, but neglect palmar data or creases, so in sense i dont get why they did like that, by doing this way you tend to create categorization in partial way and henceforth cannot be concluded. In some sense there are few papers which are really good.

Anand

anand_palm wrote:Hello Patti

I have question for you, there are several papers which have collected these statistcal figures on dermatoglyphics, however when you actually collect data you should typically know what goes into making this dermatoglyphics and then typically you go in for collecting, however when i read the research papers only some of them deal with the development aspect, but others just collect and categorize. What i could not find in these papers is a holistic approach, like they just collect fingerprint data, but neglect palmar data or creases, so in sense i dont get why they did like that, by doing this way you tend to create categorization in partial way and henceforth cannot be concluded. In some sense there are few papers which are really good.

Anand

Having studies probably evolves around interest and funding for such studies. You would probably enjoy Chris Plato's series of books about "The State of Dermatoglyphics". They are too expensive now to purchase, but you could probably look through them at a medical library.

Thanks for the info


Anand

Patti,

Someone else thinks that our species may be about to transform
http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriquez_will_our_kids_be_a_different_species.html?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2012-06-08&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email

zaobhand wrote:Patti,

Someone else thinks that our species may be about to transform
http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriquez_will_our_kids_be_a_different_species.html?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2012-06-08&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email

Wow!

I can so identify and it would certainly make sense with seeing prints that were once rare become more common and may represent mutants that are advanced or more suitable for the world they are born in.

Glad you liked it. It does make sense.

Hi Marijn

I was wondering about the heritability of fingerprints as I have noted consistencies across generations- I noted particularly that you stated the tented arch which is less common in a case close to home was present in my husband on both index fingers and also on both my two daughters hands- one having 3 classic tented arches... as this is supposed to be less common and I don't have them, where is the basis of this seeming genetic heritability factor? I do have two arches... also elongated whorls- quite dramatic in hands which I have read- were present in mother and daughter/ son... even more surprisingly in the mother's new partner! What is your view on elongated whorls as opposed to more common whorls? This applies too to very upright loops.
Would love input in this area

Felicity


Felicityn

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Hello Anand,

Yes, the documents look quite useful - and all three documents appear sort of to represent the approach described in the F.B.I. book, titled: 'The Science of Fingerprints', which is available here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19022/19022-h/19022-h.htm


But I would like to add a word of caution:

Because pictures only are often hard to understand regarding the essentials - though the info displayed appears usually correct.

- However, on page 24 of the second document about ARCHES we are confronted with info that is likely not correct - suggesting that 40% of all arches are 'tented arches' (and 60% 'plain arches').

Because usually the incidence of 'tented arches' is described to be close to 1% of all fingerprints - while about 5% of all fingerprints can be described as 'arches' (= 'tented arches' + 'plain arches'). So, the real percentage for the occurrence of 'tented arches' versus 'plain arches' is usually 20% versus 80%.

- Also, the vocabulary used in the presentation is not explained/defined... so it for sure requires further reading (such as the book 'The Science of Fingerprint') in order to understand all details properly.


Anyway, nice post Anand!