deleted deleted

Patti wrote:Martijn, take a look at the illustration on page 50 of Cummins & Midlo. The foot shows the pattern extended "extralimital" Read bottom of page 58, top of page 59 for details.

Kiwi, Martijn is incorrect in telling you that the entire pattern must be visible on the palm side to count as a specific pattern.

I have to leave for work shortly (reading hands for a Cincinnati Ballet event tonight) but will share more later.

Patti wrote:





Martijn, although Cummins & Midlo mention the triradii, their comment is not limited to triradii, but also the rest of the pattern.

Kiwi, there's a time in our early development that nearly the entire body is patterned. Palms & Soles with their ridges and the rest of the body with hair folicles or lanugo, the patterns formed are permanent in the directional growth of hair and the ridges.

Yes Patti, I can confirm the comments in your last post.

But the problem that I observe is... that you incorrectly made the assocation between Kiwihands' hypothenar and this phenomenon. Because the essential characteristics of a 'hypothenar tented arch' are actually missing in her hand: again, see the curves of the ridges that flow to the outside of the palm.


And actually... the consequence of how you made this association is that ANY triradius on the hypothenar could be associated with such 'extralimital' patterns - but that is not what Cummins & Midlo described at all.

For, you association actually violates the visual guidelines that Cummins & Midlo described for the 'hypothenar tented arch' in the picture in your former post.

Therefore, so far you appear to ignore the other differences between specific characteristics of the 'hypothenar arches' and the 'hypothenar tented arches, in the picture below:




I hope this explains why I asked you to describe specific characteristics of Kiwihands' hypothenar.

But it is not surprising to see that even after 3 posts you still didn't mention any characteristic (beyond the position of the hypothenar triradius itself) - because I observe that the essential characteristics of a 'hypothenar tented arch' are actually missing in her hand.

Patti wrote:You really didn't show enough print to fully follow the flow.

In my opinion, it is a tented arch.
Middle column, 3rd down, or a plain arch, column on right - bottom sample.

kiwihands wrote:Thanks for your comments Martijn! Again, it’s great to be able to draw on more experienced reader’s views than mine! I very much appreciate how you structure your responses, too; it makes them very easy to follow and understand.

It’s a relief to know that mine is just a t’ triradius, especially after reading about the possible implications with congenital heart disease, etc., of the higher one, and very useful to have those 3 criteria you mentioned to determine if an axial triradius is abnormally high. I knew about the AtD angle coming into play, but not about the position of t’ relative to the headline nor about the importance of the distances between the other triradii.

And yes, there are no ridges curving around the triradius, so I agree with you – probably no tented arch. But i have uploaded a larger picture just in case.

Thank you also for checking on my tracing – yes in the middle there I became unsure of what to do, since the ridges become very fine and seem to continue in slightly different directions below the head line. But you’re right; it may curve inwards and actually head down to the wrist. Good to know that whichever way the A-line goes, it’s all pretty normal, and I won’t have to worry about how much butter I put on my toast.

Thanks again
Kiwi

Hello Kiwihands,

Very nice to hear that my posts are easy for you to follow (yes, I usually use illustrative elements to make my 'lengthy' posts a bit more readable by 'structure').

And great to hear that you now also understand/recognize why you do not have a 'tented arch' on your mount of moon (yes, the ridge flow says it all: there are no steep 'curving ridges').

And yes, you are correct that the A-line actually ends at the wrist.