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

Martijn (admin) wrote:
UPDATE!!!

In another discussion we have made some progress regarding how to understand the Suwon crease properly, see:
https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t861-how-to-discriminate-a-simian-crease-from-a-sydney-line-and-a-suwon-crease


And additionally, I can recommend the following BLOG-post (which is featured with the picture below):
http://palmreadingperspectives.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/how-to-classify-the-palmar-lines-the-simian-line-sydney-line-the-suwon-crease/



NOTICE: In the picture below the 5th hand describes the essential characteristic of a Suwon crease; the Korean article (where the Suwon crease is defined) e.g. describes that the two head lines are required to be positioned 'parallel' and none of both lines should be longer than twice the length of the other lines.

Quote from the article (figure 5):

"III is accompanied by accessory palm creases which are parallel and more than half of the III length."

This quote describes the requirement for an accessory III line, but can likewise be applied to an accessory II line (which is included in the Suwon crease formula: 'II+III' plus 'accessory II'.

Patti wrote:
As I mentioned in the other post. This is your interpretation of the report.

Patti, I assume that you comment relates to my comment about that the two requirements for 'accessory III' (they require to be 'parallel' and have enough 'length') can be likewise applied for 'accessory II'...?


If I have understood your comment correctly, then I would like to point out that the Korean article clearly describes that the same principles for any of the variants were applied to all three lines (I, II and III), and this is mentioned in the paragraph where all classifications are summarized:

"Major palm creases were classified in detail. Based on the relationship between I and II, palm creases were classified into closed, open, and meeting creases (Fig. 2). Based on the relationship between II and III, palm creases were classified into normal, simian, Sydney, and Suwon creases (Fig. 3). Furthermore, based on the branches of II and III, normal, simian, and Sydney creases were classified into subtypes (Fig. 4). Lastly, based on variants of I, II, and III, each major palm crease was classified (Fig. 5)."


So, I have only made a 'summary' of the essential passages in the article which describe all requirements for the Suwon crease.

Therefore I dare you to substantiate your claim that my summary is an 'interpretation'... because so far your words only disqualify my effort to summarize the essentials of a Suwon crease.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:
As I mentioned in the other post. This is your interpretation of the report.

Patti, I assume that you comment relates to my comment about that the two requirements for 'accessory III' (they require to be 'parallel' and have enough 'length') can be likewise applied for 'accessory II'...?


If I have understood your comment correctly, then I would like to point out that the Korean article clearly describes that the same principles for any of the variants were applied to all three lines (I, II and III), and this is mentioned in the paragraph where all classifications are summarized:

"Major palm creases were classified in detail. Based on the relationship between I and II, palm creases were classified into closed, open, and meeting creases (Fig. 2). Based on the relationship between II and III, palm creases were classified into normal, simian, Sydney, and Suwon creases (Fig. 3). Furthermore, based on the branches of II and III, normal, simian, and Sydney creases were classified into subtypes (Fig. 4). Lastly, based on variants of I, II, and III, each major palm crease was classified (Fig. 5)."


So, I have only made a 'summary' of the essential passages in the article which describe all requirements for the Suwon crease.

Therefore I dare you to substantiate your claim that my summary is an 'interpretation'... because so far your words only disqualify my effort to summarize the essentials of a Suwon crease.

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:
I think their approach is very interesting, because it implicitely describes that both the Suwon crease and the Sydney line... are rather complex lines - actually they are both 'composed' by two lines (partly heartline + partly headline, and vice versa).

I'm reading this thread for the first time and maybe am missing something. I thought a Sydney crease has no connection nor is it part of a heart line.

Like Lynn I'm pretty sure I've seen this configuration on women as well as men.

It's fairly common for there to be an additional branch on the heart line bending down to the life or head lines. What defines this Suwon crease from that?

I don't really think this is something "discovered" as much as something "identified" and newly labeled by the scientific community. I imagine as time goes by these researchers will apply their names to all sorts of creases, combination and otherwise.

Patti

Lynn wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:
I am not convinced that it is II and III meeting with accessory II ? ie head and heart lines meeting with accessory head line. Why isn't it forked heartline?

Sorry Lynn, are you talking about my example? Or the researchers' example? Or the description in their article?

Can you please explain again...? (Thanks)

sorry I meant D, but also your example. I don't understand why "accessory II" isn't the main headline, and why suwon is II and III meeting rather than a long forked heartline.

Patti wrote:I've now read the abstract completely and it's covered with highlighter, underlining and exclamation points! :-)

The only place that I can find where there is a description of the Suwon crease is on Page 176 of the paper.

"while Suwon creases have accessory II, which is close to I (fig. 3)"
*(see below for context)

Earlier in the paper it distinguishes the difference between minor lines and major lines in that a minor line is "narrower than the two times of the epidermal grove width in prints".


Most of us who have studied hands and the creases of the palms for many years would not have given the the lower, Proximal Tranverse Crease II the label of "Accessory". As it's the more commonly found head line than the upward rising crease they labeled II. It would seem the "Accessory" crease would be the rising crease to the heart line.

Basically, the only other guidelines presented are where it shows what the Suwon is not, by identifying Normal, Simian and Sydney.

I think we need more examples of the Suwon than just the one presented in the article.

Your example may be or may not be a Suwon. Your example is rather common in the sense it's quite close to matching a combination of Fig. 5's A (branches) and E (cascades). Yet it's depth is deeper than the head line (proximal transverse crease II) and matches the quality of the heart line. Your highlighting might be a bit subjective in your favor. I'm not convinced. My fifth sample is closer to their illustration. So I'll take the crown for the moment


I am pleased to note that they refer to the parallel nature of some creases, as this is something I've been working with in my readings for many years.

*
"Second, Sydney creases have accessory III, which is not close to any major palm creases, while Suwon creases have accessory II, which is close to I (Fig. 3). Third, simian creases have more branches than Sydney creases (Table 3; Fig. 4) because simian creases have two major palm creases, and Sydney creases have three major palm creases. Fourth, Sydney creases have more proximal branches than distal branches (Table 3; Fig. 4) because Sydney creases have distally-located accessory III (Fig 3). Fifth, the branched, forked, and accessory variants occur less in II than in I and III (Table 4; Fig. t) because II intervenes between I and III."

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti, regarding figure 3... let's keep it simple (Patti, the following provides also an answer to your final question in your 18:25 comment):

- In figure 3A they described the normal palm: two (incomplete) transversal lines: II and III;
- In figure 3B they described the classic simian: a fusion of the 2 transveral lines: II+III;
- In figure 3C they described a typical Sydney line (featured with strong element at the end) + a normal upper transversal line: II+III and accessory III;
- In figure 3D they described a 'Suwon crease' + a normal lower transverse crease: II+III and accessory II.

NOTICE: The word 'accessory' doesn't mean that it is less important - they only describe it secondary because obviously the crease-combination is always the key-issue to be considered!

And the reference in the text that II is close to line I... is not a key-element either: because in the accessory words featured with picture 3... I (= life line) is not mentioned at all!!

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Hi Patti, thanks for sharing the new Indian study!




PS. Remember, the Koreans have described that the Suwon crease had never been described before. So, I think it is quite obvious that the Indan researchers problably made some assumptions that will probably not get confirmed by the Korean researchers - because the 'extended distal crease' was already known and described decades ago (and it is much more common than the Suwon crease).

And I think these two passage indicate that the Indian made an incorrect assumption:

"Recently a new Suwon crease with an incidence of 0.5% has been described as a single crease that extends across the palm, formed by the fusion of the two transverse palmar creases with an accessory proximal transverse crease and so named because it was first described in Suwon, Korea."

The Korean researchers did not describe the Suwon crease as a 'single crease'... instead they describe explicitely that it should be recognized as:

"The new logical type of palm creases shows that II and III meet, accompanied by accessory II"

This definition suggest literally that the 'meeting' of the 2 lines should be visible, so... a single line can not meet the definition of a Suwon crease.

"Though this study found three subjects with Simian crease in their one hand and Suwon crease on their other hand; and two subjects presented Sydney and Suwon creases in their different hands"

Not sure, but I think in the Korean study none of the people featured with a Suwon creases also had a simian or Sydney line in the other hand.

And additionally: all 4 Suwon examples in figure 3 have characteristics that are not seen in the Suwon examples in the Korean study. For example: in the last 3 examples I recognize how they might have confused 'fate lines' with 'head lines'.


(These are just a few quick comments at first sight, but I haven't read the Indian article by detail yet)
Example D in the picture below concerns an example of a Suwon crease defined by the Korean researchers (again, all 4 drawn examples presented by de Indian do not have likewise characteristics as seen in figure 4 - and I think it is also worrisome that the Indian have presented no visual example of one of the hands that they described as a 'Suwon crease').[/color]

"Infrequently both transverse creases are present but with only one of either completely crossing the palm resulting to a Sydney crease (Borbolla et al., 1980)"

Patti wrote:"Suwon i: Accessory III but branch of II or III does not exist. Suwon ii: Accessory III and branch of II
exist. Suwon iii: Accessory III and branch of III exist. Suwon iv: Accessory III and branch of II and III exist." (4th page of the pdf under the sketches)

I think they meant Accessory II instead of Accessory III to refer to the lower extra proximal transverse crease! (as Accessory III represents the heart line in the Sydney crease formation) I sent an email to the researcher just to confirm that this is an error and not intentional.

Thanks for drawing attention at overlooked mis-marking in 4th page of
article. No doubt the extra lower proximal transverse crease marked
Accessory III should be corrected as Accessory II.

Regards,
Sincerely,

Dr. D. K. Sharma
Associate Professor in Anatomy,
SRMS Institute of Medical Sciences, UP INDIA

Patti wrote:Is this an error...?

2nd Page, 2nd column, top para:

"Infrequently both transverse creases are present but with only one of either completely crossing the palm resulting to a Sydney crease (Borbolla et al., 1980)"

...Unless, they are referring to a similar remark in one of Chris Plato's books that acknowledges there is a pattern of creases that involves the elongated distal transverse crease, and another transverse crease is present.

Patti wrote:

Patti wrote:"Suwon i: Accessory III but branch of II or III does not exist. Suwon ii: Accessory III and branch of II
exist. Suwon iii: Accessory III and branch of III exist. Suwon iv: Accessory III and branch of II and III exist." (4th page of the pdf under the sketches)

I think they meant Accessory II instead of Accessory III to refer to the lower extra proximal transverse crease! (as Accessory III represents the heart line in the Sydney crease formation) I sent an email to the researcher just to confirm that this is an error and not intentional.

I received a reply to my email:

Thanks for drawing attention at overlooked mis-marking in 4th page of
article. No doubt the extra lower proximal transverse crease marked
Accessory III should be corrected as Accessory II.

Regards,
Sincerely,

Dr. D. K. Sharma
Associate Professor in Anatomy,
SRMS Institute of Medical Sciences, UP INDIA

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Hi Patti, thanks for sharing the new Indian study!




PS. Remember, the Koreans have described that the Suwon crease had never been described before. So, I think it is quite obvious that the Indan researchers problably made some assumptions that will probably not get confirmed by the Korean researchers - because the 'extended distal crease' was already known and described decades ago (and it is much more common than the Suwon crease).

I don't think what was already known is relevant as the Koreans have presented a 'new and improved' system. (the Sydney and Simian were also previously known - yet the Sydney was never described as II + III)

Patti, what you describe as not 'relevant'... is for me actually a missing piece in this rather complex puzzle called 'the Suwon crease'.

Because many of the problems that we have discussed raise from directly or indirectly from the simple fact that the Korean researchers have left the impression that they had no awareness of that the 'extended distal crease' has been described - and adopted in quite a few other studies over time.

But I am very aware the 'extended distal crease' is also a relatively common variation seen in the heart line (though less common than the Sydney line). And let's not forget that the Korean researchers not only defined the Suwon crease as being constructed by 2 pieces of a primary crease... they also presented a visual example where we can clearly see 2 connecting line pieces that EACH have a different structure!


Therefore I believe that the Indians have misunderstood the Korean concept for the Suwon crease - but I don't blame them for that, because it is obvious for me as well that the misunderstandings are induced by the Korean article itself!


PS. This also explains why you and I were not able to find much agreement about what the Suwon crease really is - but the choice of words shows that the Indian researchers have experienced likewise problems:

"In our opinion Suwon crease seems an extended distal transversecrease or heart line as Sydney crease is extended proximaltransverse crease or head line."

Because the combination of the words 'our opinion' and the word 'seems' can be read as reflecting explicitely the doubts that the Indian researchers must have had (just like us) in understanding the article.

And this confirms my opinion that the value of the Korean article remains to be seen. But now that the Indian article is available that will probably induce other scientific research to start a debate about the many obvious differences between the descriptions, illustrations and results reported in the 2 articles.

Patti wrote:

And I think these two passage indicate that the Indian made an incorrect assumption:

"Recently a new Suwon crease with an incidence of 0.5% has been described as a single crease that extends across the palm, formed by the fusion of the two transverse palmar creases with an accessory proximal transverse crease and so named because it was first described in Suwon, Korea."

The Korean researchers did not describe the Suwon crease as a 'single crease'... instead they describe explicitely that it should be recognized as:

"The new logical type of palm creases shows that II and III meet, accompanied by accessory II"

This definition suggest literally that the 'meeting' of the 2 lines should be visible, so... a single line can not meet the definition of a Suwon crease.

This idea that 2 separate lines visibly meeting should be obvious in the II + III is not in my opinion part of the definition. Because they also describe a simian and a Sydney as II + III.

Patti, formally it is a part of the definition of the Suwon crease - illustrated in the formula: 'II+III' and the only visual example, which clearly suggests the presence of 2 meeting lines - which obviously can be recognized visually by the difference in the structure of each of those lines.

But I can agree that the Korean re-definition for the Sydney line suggests that your conclusion 'appears' to makes sense, because the Korean have featured their definition with a visual presentation of 6 Sydney line types:



However... there is contradictive evidence for your conclusion(s) as well:

Because the Korean researchers have not suggested anyhow that a Suwon crease can manifest as fundamentally different types. Unfortunately, they haven't even presented a schematic representation for the Suwon crease. And therefore, beyond how they re-defined the Sydney line... there is no direct evidence at all that the Korean research would qualify every 'extended distal crease' as a Suwon crease.

Again, I can summarize:

First of all, the Korean researchers claim to describe a line which has never been described before.

Second, the rarity of this line is confirmed by the statistics in the Korean report, which indicate that the Suwon crease is a much rarer hand line variant than the 'extended distal crease',

Third, the descriptions, the illustrations and the statistics in the Indian report indicate that the Indian researchers sort of have presented an attempt to re-define the Korean definition for the Suwon crease!


My conclusion: it remains to be seen whether how other researchers will respond to the Korean & Indian article, but my hope is now that the Korean research will pick up the Indian article and respond somehow - hopefully via a new publication.


( The Indian re-definition of the Suwon crease would make figure 8 in the Korean article a second example of a Suwon crease in that article, but that is not quite what the Korean researchers had in mind when they presented that picture... while I think they probably have qualified that example as a 'normal crease' - because it is not uncommon for a heart line to make a connection with the life line without making any 'fusion' with the head line... though formally in one can also associate this example with simian line variants 4 or 5, see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2998791/figure/F8/ )

Patti wrote:... It seems you have taken a rather orthodox approach to the Suwon based on only one ink print sample.

No, that's not correct. Because you should become more aware that in my approach I have incorporated all available definitions + statistics presented in the Korean article as well... so the one ink print sample is not much more than one of the elements in my approach. I have discussed here and in other topics all available details, so I don't understand why you now suddenly jumped into this unfounded conclusion.

So from my point of view, it appears that you might have lost (or forgotten) the full perspective that I have described during our discussions.


Anyway, I am looking forward to your other responses!

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:... It seems you have taken a rather orthodox approach to the Suwon based on only one ink print sample.

No, that's not correct. Because you should become more aware that in my approach I have incorporated all available definitions + statistics presented in the Korean article as well... so the one ink print sample is not much more than one of the elements in my approach. I have discussed here and in other topics all available details, so I don't understand why you now suddenly jumped into this unfounded conclusion.

So from my point of view, it appears that you might have lost (or forgotten) the full perspective that I have described during our discussions.


Anyway, I am looking forward to your other responses!