| No. of sets | | |
| under same | Frequency of its | No. of entries. |
| index-heading.| occurrence. | |
|---------------|------------------|-----------------|
| 0 | 83 | 0 |
| 1 | 47 | 47 |
| 2 | 47 | 94 |
| 3 | 25 | 75 |
| 4 | 16 | 64 |
| 5 | 7 | 35 |
| 6 | 3 | 18 |
| 7 | 4 | 28 |
| 8 | 1 | 8 |
| 9 | 2 | 18 |
| 10 | 2 | 20 |
| 11 | 2 | 22 |
| 14 | 2 | 28 |
| 19 | 1 | 19 |
| 24 | 1 | 24 |
|----------------------------------------------------|
| Total entries 500 |
+----------------------------------------------------+
No example was found of 83, say of one-third, of the 243 possible
combinations. In one case no less than 24 sets fell under the same head;
in another case 19 did so, and there were two cases in which 14, 11, and
10 severally did the same. Thus, out of 500 sets (see the five bottom
lines in the last column of the above table) no less than 113 sets fell
into four classes, each of which included from 10 to 24 entries.
The 24 sets whose Index-number is + M, + + + admit of being easily
subdivided and rapidly sorted by an expert, into smaller groups, paying
regard to considerable differences only, in the head-length and
head-breadth. After doing this, two comparatively large groups remain,
with five cases in each, which require further analysis. They are as
follow, the height and eye-colour being added in each case, and brackets
being so placed as to indicate measures that do not differ to a sufficient
amount to be surely distinguished. No two sets are alike throughout, some
difference of considerable magnitude always occurring to distinguish them.
Nos. 2 and 3 come closest together, and are distinguished by eye-colour
alone.
TABLE XIX.
Five cases of Head-length 8.0, and Head-breadth 6.1.
Span. Body. Finger. Height. Eye-colour.
1. { 72.4 38.0 4.8 { 71.2 { br. grey
2. { 72.6 { 37.0 { 4.7 { 71.4 { br. grey
3. { 72.7 { 36.7 { 4.7 { 71.4 blue
4. 73.9 36.4 5.0 70.7 brown
5. 75.3 37.9 4.8 73.4 blue
Five cases of Head-length 7.8, and Head-breadth 6.0.
6. 70.8 37.8 { 4.7 { 70.0 brown
7. { 71.9 36.2 { 4.7 { 69.3 blue
8. { 72.4 { 37.2 { 4.7 { 68.4 brown
9. 74.8 { 37.8 5.0 73.1 blue
10. 79.9 { 37.3 5.3 75.6 blue grey
This is satisfactory. It shows that each one of the 500 sets may be
distinguished from all the others by means of only seven elements; for if
it is possible so to subdivide twenty-four entries that come under one
index-heading, we may assume that we could do so in the other cases where
the entries were fewer. The other measures that I possess--strength of
grasp and breathing capacity--are closely correlated with stature and
bulk, while eyesight and reaction-time are uncorrelated, but the latter
are hardly suited to test the further application of the Bertillon method.
It would appear, from these and other data, that a purely anthropometric
classification, irrespective of bodily marks and photographs, would enable
an expert to deal with registers of considerable size.
Bearing in mind that mediocrities differ less from one another than
members of either of the extreme classes, and would therefore be more
difficult to distinguish, it seems probable that with comparatively few
exceptions, _at least_ two thousand adults of the same sex might be
individualised, merely by means of twelve careful measures, on the
Bertillon system, making reasonable allowances for that small change of
proportions that occurs after the lapse of a few years, and for
inaccuracies of measurement. This estimate may be far below the truth, but
more cannot, I think, be safely inferred from the above very limited
experiment.
The system of registration adopted in the American army for tracing
suspected deserters, was described in a memoir contributed to the
"International Congress of Demography," held in London in 1891. The memoir
has so far been only published in the _Abstracts of Papers_, p. 233 (Eyre
and Spottiswoode). Its phraseology is unfortunately so curt as sometimes
to be difficult to understand; it runs as follows:--
Personal identity as determined by scars and other body marks by
Colonel Charles R. Greenleaf and Major Charles Smart, Medical
Department, U.S. Army.
Desertions from United States army believed to greatly exceed
deserters, owing to repeaters.
Detection of repeaters possible if all body marks of all recruits
recorded, all deserters noted, and all recruits compared with previous
deserters.
In like manner men discharged for cause excluded from re-entry.
Bertillon's anthropometric method insufficient before courts-martial,
because possible inaccuracies in measurement, and because of allowable
errors.
But identity acknowledged following coincident indelible marks, when
height, age, and hair fairly correspond.
That is, Bertillon's collateral evidence is practically primary
evidence for such purposes.
There is used for each man an outline figure card giving anterior and
posterior surfaces, divided by dotted lines into regions.
These, showing each permanent mark, are filed alphabetically at the
Surgeon-General's office, War Department.
As a man goes out for cause, or deserts, his card is placed in a
separate file.
The cards of recruits are compared with the last-mentioned file.
To make this comparison, a register in two volumes is opened, one for
light-eyed and one for dark-eyed men. Each is subdivided into a fair
number of pages, according to height of entrants, and each page is
ruled in columns for body regions. Tattooed and non-tattooed men of
similar height and eyes are entered on opposite pages. Recruits
without tattoos are not compared with deserters with tattoos; but
recruits with tattoos are compared with both classes.
On the register S T B M, etc., are used as abbreviations for scar,
tattoo, birth-mark, mole, etc.
One inch each side of recorded height allowed for variation or
defective measurement.
When probability of identity appears, the original card is used for
comparison.
Owing to obstacles in inaugurating new system, its practical working
began with 1891, and, to include May 1891 [= 5 months, F.G.], out of
sixty-two cases of suspected fraud sixty-one proved real.
There was some interesting discussion, both upon this memoir and on a
verbal communication concerning the French method, that had been made by
M. Jacques Bertillon the statistician, who is a brother of its originator.
It appeared that there was room for doubt whether the anthropometric
method had received a fair trial in America, the measurements being made
by persons not specially trained, whereas in France the establishments,
though small, are thoroughly efficient.
There are almost always moles or birth-marks, serving for identification,
on the body of every one, and a record of these is, as already noted, an
important though subsidiary part of the Bertillon system. Body-marks are
noted in the English registers of criminals, and it is curious how large a
proportion of these men are tattooed and scarred. How far the body-marks
admit of being usefully charted on the American plan, it is difficult to
say, the success of the method being largely dependent on the care with
which they are recorded. The number of persons hitherto dealt with on the
American plan appears not to be very large. As observations of this class
require the person to be undressed, they are unsuitable for popular
purposes of identification, but the marks have the merit of serving to
identify at all ages, which the measurements of the limbs have not.
It seems strange that no register of this kind, so far as I know, takes
account of the teeth. If a man, on being first registered, is deficient in
certain teeth, they are sure to be absent when he is examined on a future
occasion. He may, and probably will in the meantime, have lost others, but
the fact of his being without specified teeth on the first occasion,
excludes the possibility of his being afterwards mistaken for a man who
still possesses them.
We will now separately summarise the results arrived at, in respect to the
two processes that may both be needed in order to effect an
identification.
First, as regards _search in an Index_.--Some sets of measures will give
trouble, but the greater proportion can apparently be catalogued with so
much certainty, that if a second set of measures of any individual be
afterwards taken, no tedious search will be needed to hunt out the former
set. Including the bodily marks and photographs, let us rate the Bertillon
method as able to cope with a register of 20,000 adults of the same sex,
with a small and definable, but as yet unknown, average dose of
difficulty, which we will call _x_.
A catalogue of 500 sets of finger prints easily fulfils the same
conditions. I could lay a fair claim to much more, but am content with
this. Now the finger patterns have been shown to be so independent of
other conditions that they cannot be notably, if at all, correlated with
the bodily measurements or with any other feature, not the slightest
trace of any relation between them having yet been found, as will be shown
at p. 186, and more fully in Chapter XII. For instance, it would be
totally impossible to fail to distinguish between the finger prints of
twins, who in other respects appeared exactly alike. Finger prints may
therefore be treated without the fear of any sensible error, as varying
quite independently of the measures and records in the Bertillon system.
Their inclusion would consequently increase its power fully five-hundred
fold. Suppose one moderate dose of difficulty, _x_, is enough for dealing
with the measurements, etc., of 20,000 adult persons of the same sex by
the Bertillon method, and a similar dose of difficulty with the finger
prints of 500 persons, then two such doses could deal with a register of
20,000 x 500, or 10,000,000.
We now proceed to consider the second and final process, namely, that of
identification by _Comparison_. When the data concerning a suspected
person are discovered to bear a general likeness to one of those already
on the register, and a minute comparison shows their finger prints to
agree in all or nearly all particulars, the evidence thereby afforded that
they were made by the same person, far transcends in trustworthiness any
other evidence that can ordinarily be obtained, and vastly exceeds all
that can be derived from any number of ordinary anthropometric data. _By
itself it is amply sufficient to convict._ _Bertillonage_ can rarely
supply more than grounds for very strong suspicion: the method of finger
prints affords certainty. It is easy, however, to understand that so long
as the peculiarities of finger prints are not generally understood, a
juryman would be cautious in accepting their evidence, but it is to be
hoped that attention will now gradually become drawn to their marvellous
virtues, and that after their value shall have been established in a few
conspicuous cases, it will come to be popularly recognised.
Let us not forget two great and peculiar merits of finger prints; they are
self-signatures, free from all possibility of faults in observation or of
clerical error; and they apply throughout life.
An abstract of the remarks made by M. Herbette, Director of the
Penitentiary Department of the Ministere de l'Interieur, France, at the
International Penitentiary Congress at Rome, after the communication by M.
Alphonse Bertillon had been read, may fitly follow.
"Proceeding to a more extended view of the subject and praising the
successful efforts of M. Bertillon, M. Herbette pointed out how a
verification of the physical personality, and of the identity of
people of adult age, would fulfil requirements of modern society in an
indisputable manner under very varied conditions.
"If it were a question, for instance, of giving to the inhabitants of
a country, to the soldiers of an army, or to travellers proceeding to
distant lands, notices or personal cards as recognisable signs,
enabling them always to prove who they are; if it were a question of
completing the obligatory records of civil life by perfectly sure
indications, such as would prevent all error, or substitution of
persons; if it were a question of recording the distinctive marks of
an individual in documents, titles or contracts, where his identity
requires to be established for his own interest, for that of third
parties, or for that of the State,--there the anthropometric system
of identification would find place.
"Should it be a question of a life certificate, of a life assurance,
or of a proof of death, or should it be required to certify the
identity of a person who was insane, severely wounded, or of a dead
body that had been partly destroyed, or so disfigured as to be hardly
recognisable from a sudden or violent death due to crime, accident,
shipwreck, or battle--how great would be the advantage of being able
to trace these characters, unchangeable as they are in each
individual, infinitely variable as between one individual and another,
indelible, at least in part, even in death.
"There is still more cause to be interested in this subject when it is
a question of identifying persons who are living at a great distance,
and after the lapse of a considerable time, when the physiognomy, the
features, and the physical habits may have changed from natural or
artificial causes, and to be able to identify them without taking a
journey and without cost, by the simple exchange of a few lines or
figures that may be sent from one country or continent to another, so
as to give information in America as to who any particular man is, who
has just arrived from France, and to certify whether a certain
traveller found in Rome is the same person who was measured in
Stockholm ten years before.
"In one word, to fix the human personality, to give to each human
being an identity, an individuality that can be depended upon with
certainty, lasting, unchangeable, always recognisable and easily
adduced, this appears to be in the largest sense the aim of the new
method.
"Consequently, it may be said that the extent of the problem, as well
as the importance of its solution, far exceeds the limits of
penitentiary work and the interest, which is however by no means
inconsiderable, that penal action has excited amongst various nations.
These are the motives for giving to the labours of M. Bertillon and to
their practical utilisation the publicity they merit."
These full and clear remarks seem even more applicable to the method of
finger prints than to that of anthropometry.
CHAPTER XI
HEREDITY
Some of those who have written on finger marks affirm that they are
transmissible by descent, others assert the direct contrary, but no
inquiry hitherto appears to justify a definite conclusion.
Chapter VIII. shows a close correlation to exist between the patterns on
the several fingers of the same person. Hence we are justified in assuming
that the patterns are partly dependent on constitutional causes, in which
case it would indeed be strange if the general law of heredity failed in
this particular case.
After examining many prints, the frequency with which some peculiar
pattern was found to characterise members of the same family convinced me
of the reality of an hereditary tendency. The question was how to submit
the belief to numerical tests; particular kinships had to be selected, and
methods of discussion devised.
It must here be borne in mind that "Heredity" implies more than its
original meaning of a relationship between parent and child. It includes
that which connects children of the same parents, and which I have shown
(_Natural Inheritance_) to be just twice as close in the case of stature
as that which connects a child and either of its two parents. Moreover,
the closeness of the fraternal and the filial relations are to a great
extent interdependent, for in any population whose faculties remain
_statistically_ the same during successive generations, it has been shown
that a simple algebraical equation must exist, that connects together the
three elements of Filial Relation, Fraternal Relation, and Regression, by
which a knowledge of any two of them determines the value of the third. So
far as Regression may be treated as being constant in value, the Filial
and the Fraternal relations become reciprocally connected. It is not
possible briefly to give an adequate explanation of all this now, or to
show how strictly observations were found to confirm the theory; this has
been fully done in _Natural Inheritance_, and the conclusions will here be
assumed.
The fraternal relation, besides disclosing more readily than other
kinships the existence or non-existence of heredity, is at the same time
more convenient, because it is easier to obtain examples of brothers and
sisters alone, than with the addition of their father and mother. The
resemblance between those who are twins is also an especially significant
branch of the fraternal relationship. The word "fraternities" will be used
to include the children of both sexes who are born of the same parents; it
being impossible to name the familiar kinship in question either in
English, French, Latin, or Greek, without circumlocution or using an
incorrect word, thus affording a striking example of the way in which
abstract thought outruns language, and its expression is hampered by the
inadequacy of language. In this dilemma I prefer to fall upon the second
horn, that of incorrectness of phraseology, subject to the foregoing
explanation and definition.
The first preliminary experiments were made with the help of the
Arch-Loop-Whorl classification, on the same principle as that already
described and utilised in Chapter VIII., with the following addition. Each
of the two members of any couplet of fingers has a distinctive name--for
instance, the couplet may consist of a finger and a thumb: or again, if it
should consist of two fore-fingers, one will be a right fore-finger and
the other a left one, but the two brothers in a couplet of brothers rank
equally as such. The plan was therefore adopted of "ear-marking" the
prints of the first of the two brothers that happened to come to hand,
with an A, and that of the second brother with a B; and so reducing the
questions to the shape:--How often does the pattern on the finger of a B
brother agree with that on the corresponding finger of an A brother? How
often would it occur between two persons who had no family likeness? How
often would it correspond if the kinship between A and B were as close as
it is possible to conceive? Or transposing the questions, and using the
same words as in Chapter VIII., what is the relative frequency of (1)
Random occurrences, (2) Observed occurrences, (3) Utmost possibilities?
It was shown in that chapter how to find the value of (2) upon a
centesimal scale in which "Randoms" ranked as 0 deg. and "Utmost
possibilities" as 100 deg.
The method there used of calculating the frequency of the "Random" events
will be accepted without hesitation by all who are acquainted with the
theory and the practice of problems of probability. Still, it is as well
to occasionally submit calculation to test. The following example was sent
to me for that purpose by a friend who, not being mathematically minded,
had demurred somewhat to the possibility of utilising the calculated
"Randoms."
The prints of 101 (by mistake for 100) couplets of prints of the right
fore-fingers of school children were taken by him from a large collection,
the two members, A and B, being picked out at random and formed into a
couplet. It was found that among the A children there were 22 arches, 50
loops, and 29 whorls, and among the B children 25, 34, and 42
respectively, as is shown by the _italic_ numerals in the last column, and
again in the bottom row of Table XX. The remainder of the table shows the
number of times in which an arch, loop, or whorl of an A child was
associated with an arch, loop, or whorl of a B child.
TABLE XX.
_Observed Random Couplets._
+----------------------------------------------------+
| | A children. | Totals in |
| B children. |------------------------| B children. |
| | Arches.| Loops.|Whorls.| |
|-------------|--------|-------|-------|-------------|
| Arches | 5 | 12 | 8 | _25_ |
| Loops | 8 | 18 | 8 | _34_ |
| Whorls | 9 | 20 | 13 | _42_ |
|-------------|--------|-------|-------|-------------|
|Totals in A} | | | | |
| children } | _22_ | _50_ | _29_ | 101 |
+----------------------------------------------------+
TABLE XXI.
_Calculated Random Couplets._
+----------------------------------------------------+
| | A children. | Totals in |
| B children. |------------------------| B children. |
| | Arches.| Loops.|Whorls.| |
|-------------|--------|-------|-------|-------------|
| Arches | 5.00 | 12.50 | 7.25 | _25_ |
| Loops | 6.80 | 17.00 | 9.86 | _34_ |
| Whorls | 8.40 | 21.00 | 12.18 | _42_ |
|-------------|--------|-------|-------|-------------|
|Totals in A} | | | | |
| children } | _22_ | _50_ | _29_ | 101 |
+----------------------------------------------------+
The question, then, was how far calculations from the above data would
correspond with the contents of Table XX. The answer is that it does so
admirably. Multiply each of the italicised A totals into each of the
italicised B totals, and after dividing each result by 101, enter it in
the square at which the column that has the A total at its base, is
intersected by the row that has the B total at its side. We thus obtain
Table XXI.
We will now discuss in order the following relationships: the Fraternal,
first in the ordinary sense, and then in the special case of twins of the
same set; Filial, in the special case in which both parents have the same
particular pattern on the same finger; lastly, the relative influence of
the father and mother in transmitting their patterns.
_Fraternal relationship._--In 105 fraternities the _observed_ figures were
as in Table XXII.:--
TABLE XXII.
_Observed Fraternal Couplets._
+----------------------------------------------------+
| | A children. | Totals in |
| B children. |----------------------| B children. |
| |Arches.|Loops.|Whorls.| |
|--------------|-------|------|-------|--------------|
|Arches | 5 | 12 | 2 | _19_ |
| |-------+------| | |
|Loops | 4 | 42 | 15 | _61_ |
| |-------|------|-------| |
|Whorls | 1 | 14 | 10 | _25_ |
|--------------|-------+------+-------|--------------|
|Totals in A } | | | | |
| children } | _10_ | _68_ | _27_ | 105 |
+----------------------------------------------------+
The squares that run diagonally from the top at the left, to the bottom at
the right, contain the double events, and it is with these that we are
now concerned. Are the entries in those squares larger or not than the
randoms, calculated as above, viz. the values of 10 x 19, 68 x 61, 27 x
25, all divided by 105? The calculated Randoms are shown in the first line
of Table XXIII., the third line gives the greatest feasible number of
correspondences which would occur if the kinship were as close as
possible, subject to the reservation explained in p. 127. As there shown,
the _lower_ of the A and B values is taken in each case, for Arches,
Loops, and Whorls respectively.
TABLE XXIII.
+----------------------------------------------+
| | A and B both being |
| |----------------------------|
| | Arches. | Loops. | Whorls. |
|-----------------|---------|--------|---------|
| Random | 1.7 | 37.6 | 6.2 |
| Observed | 5.0 | 42.0 | 10.0 |
| Utmost feasible | 10.0 | 61.0 | 25.0 |
+----------------------------------------------+
In every instance, the Observed values are seen to exceed the Random.
Many other cases of this description were calculated, all yielding the
same general result, but these results are not as satisfactory as can be
wished, owing to their dilution by inappropriate cases, the A. L. W.
system being somewhat artificial.
[Illustration: PLATE 16.
FIG. 24. The "C" set of standard patterns, for prints of the Right Hand.]
With the view of obtaining a more satisfactory result the patterns were
subdivided under fifty-three heads, and an experiment was made with the
fore, middle, and ring-fingers of 150 fraternal couplets (300
individuals and 900 digits) by Mr. F. Howard Collins, who kindly undertook
the considerable labour of indexing and tabulating them.
The provisional list of standard patterns published in the _Phil. Trans._
was not appropriate for this purpose. It related chiefly to thumbs, and
consequently omitted the tented arch; it also referred to the left hand,
but in the following tabulations the right hand has been used; and its
numbering is rather inconvenient. The present set of fifty-three patterns
has faults, and cannot be considered in any way as final, but it was
suitable for our purposes and may be convenient to others; as Mr. Collins
worked wholly by it, it may be distinguished as the "C. set." The banded
patterns, 24-31, are very rarely found on the fingers, but being common on
the thumb, were retained, on the chance of our requiring the introduction
of thumb patterns into the tabulations. The numerals refer to the patterns
as seen in impressions of the _right hand_ only. [They would be equally
true for the patterns as seen on the _fingers themselves_ of the left
hand.] For impressions of the left hand the numerals up to 7 inclusive
would be the same, but those of all the rest would be changed. These are
arranged in couplets, the one member of the couplet being a reversed
picture of the other, those in each couplet being distinguished by
severally bearing an odd and an even number. Therefore, in impressions of
the left hand, 8 would have to be changed into 9, and 9 into 8; 10 into
11, and 11 into 10; and so on, up to the end, viz. 52 and 53. The numeral
54 was used to express nondescript patterns.
The finger prints had to be gone through repeatedly, some weeks elapsing
between the inspections, and under conditions which excluded the
possibility of unconscious bias; a subject of frequent communication
between Mr. Collins and myself. Living at a distance apart, it was not
easy at the time they were made, to bring our respective interpretations
of transitional and of some of the other patterns, especially the invaded
loops, into strict accordance, so I prefer to keep his work, in which I
have perfect confidence, independent from my own. Whenever a fraternity
consisted of more than two members, they were divided, according to a
prearranged system, into as many couplets as there were individuals. Thus,
while a fraternity of three individuals furnished all of its three
possible varieties of couplets, (1, 2), (1, 3), (2, 3), one of four
individuals was not allowed to furnish more than four of its possible
couplets, the two italicised ones being omitted, (1, 2), (1, 3), (_1, 4_),
(_2, 3_), (2, 4), (3, 4), and so on. Without this precaution, a single
very large family might exercise a disproportionate and even overwhelming
statistical influence.
It would be essential to exact working, that the mutual relations of the
patterns should be taken into account; for example, suppose an arch to be
found on the fore-finger of one brother and a nascent loop on that of the
other; then, as these patterns are evidently related, their concurrence
ought to be interpreted as showing some degree of resemblance. However,
it was impossible to take cognizance of partial resemblances, the mutual
relations of the patterns not having, as yet, been determined with
adequate accuracy.
The completed tabulations occupied three large sheets, one for each of the
fingers, ruled crossways into fifty-three vertical columns for the A
brothers, and fifty-three horizontal rows for the B brothers. Thus, if the
register number of the pattern of A was 10, and that of B was 42, then a
mark would be put in the square limited by the ninth and tenth horizontal
lines, and by the forty-first and forty-second vertical ones. The marks
were scattered sparsely over the sheet. Those in each square were then
added up, and finally the numbers in each of the rows and in each of the
columns were severally totalled.
If the number of couplets had been much greater than they are, a test of
the accuracy with which their patterns had been classed under the
appropriate heads, would be found in the frequency with which the same
patterns were registered in the corresponding finger of the A and B
brothers. The A and B groups are strictly homogeneous, consequently the
frequency of their patterns in corresponding fingers ought to be alike.
The success with which this test has been fulfilled in the present case,
is passably good, its exact degree being shown in the following
paragraphs, where the numbers of entries under each head are arranged in
as orderly a manner as the case admits, the smaller of the two numbers
being the one that stands first, whether it was an A or a B. All instances
in which there were at least five entries under either A or B, are
included; the rest being disregarded. The result is as follows:--
I. Thirteen cases of more or less congruity between the number of A
and B entries under the same head:--5-7; 5-7; 5-8; 6-8; 7-10; 8-9;
8-12; 9-12; 10-10; 11-13; 12-16; 14-18; 72-73. (This last refers to
loops on the middle finger.)
II. Six cases of more or less incongruity:--1-7; 6-12; 14-20; 14-22;
22-35; 39-50.
The three Tables, XXIV., XXV., XXVI., contain the results of the
tabulations and the deductions from them.
TABLE XXIV.
_Comparison of three Fingers of the Right Hand in 150 Fraternal Couplets._
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | Fore-fingers. || Middle fingers. || Ring-fingers. |
| |--------------------||--------------------||--------------------|
| Index | Down |Along|Double|| Down |Along|Double|| Down |Along|Double|
| No. of|columns|lines|events||columns|lines|events||columns|lines|events|
|Pattern|-------|-----|------||-------|-----|------||-------|-----|------|
| | | | A || | | A || | | A |
| | A | B | and || A | B | and || A | B | and |
| | | | B || | | B || | | B |
|-------|-------|-----|------||-------|-----|------||-------|-----|------|
| 1 | 15 | 12 | 4 || 8 | 5 | 2 || 7 | 5 | 1 |
| 2 | 3 | 2 | || 3 | 2 | || | | |
| 6 | 2 | 2 | 1 || | | || 2 | 4 | |
| 7 | | 2 | || 2 | 1 | || 7 | 5 | 1 |
| 8 | | | || | | || | 1 | |
| 9 | 1 | 7 | || 4 | 1 | 1 || 7 | 1 | |
| 12 | 1 | | || 2 | | || | | |
| 13 | | | || 2 | 1 | || | | |
| 14 | 4 | 3 | || 4 | 4 | 1 || 20 | 14 | 1 |
| 15 | 16 | 12 | 3 || 4 | 2 | || 3 | 4 | |
| 16 | 2 | 3 | || 2 | 3 | || 10 | 7 | 2 |
| 17 | 4 | 3 | || 3 | | || | | |
| 18 | | | || 4 | 1 | || 18 | 14 | 6 |
| 19 | 3 | 3 | || 2 | 5 | || 1 | | |
| 20 | | | || | | || 1 | 3 | 1 |
| 21 | | 1 | || | | || | | |
| 22 | | 4 | || 1 | 8 | || 1 | 2 | |
| 23 | 1 | | || 1 | | || 6 | | |
| 27 | 1 | | || | | || | | |
| 32 | 1 | | || 1 | 3 | || 4 | 4 | |
| 33 | 3 | 1 | 1 || 1 | | || 3 | 3 | 1 |
| 34 | 3 | 2 | || 4 | 1 | || | | |
| 35 | 2 | 3 | || | 5 | || 9 | 12 | 2 |
| 38 | 2 | 1 | || | | || | | |
| 39 | 4 | | || 3 | 1 | || | | |
| 40 | 13 | 11 | 1 || 14 | 22 | 6 || 9 | 8 | |
| 41 | 12 | 8 | || 1 | 3 | || | 1 | |
| 42 | 22 | 35 | 5 || 73 | 72 | 35 || 39 | 50 | 16 |
| 43 | 10 | 10 | 3 || 4 | 1 | || | 3 | |
| 44 | 2 | 1 | || | 2 | || | 2 | |
| 45 | 1 | 1 | || | | || | | |
| 46 | 8 | 6 | 1 || 3 | 1 | || | 1 | |
| 47 | 3 | 4 | || | | || | | |
| 48 | 6 | 12 | 1 || 4 | 6 | || 2 | 3 | |
| 49 | 1 | 1 | || | | || | | |
| 52 | | | || | | || 1 | | |
| 53 | | | || | | || | 1 | |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
TABLE XXV.
_Comparison between Random and Observed Events._
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Fore. || Middle. || Ring. |
|-------------------||-------------------||-------------------|
| Random.| Observed.|| Random.| Observed.|| Random.| Observed.|
|--------|----------||--------|----------||--------|----------|
| 1.20 | 4 || 0.26 | 2 || 0.23 | 1 |
| 0.08 | ... || 0.11 | 1 || 0.05 | ... |
| 1.28 | 3 || 0.05 | ... || 0.23 | ... |
| 0.08 | ... || 0.07 | ... || 1.87 | 1 |
| 0.06 | ... || 0.05 | ... || 0.08 | ... |
| 0.95 | 1 || 2.05 | 6 || 0.46 | 2 |
| 0.64 | ... || 34.08 | 35 || 1.68 | 6 |
| 5.18 | 5 || 0.16 | ... || 0.11 | ... |
| 0.67 | 3 || | || 0.06 | 1 |
| 0.32 | 1 || | || 0.72 | 2 |
| 0.08 | ... || | || 0.48 | ... |
| 0.48 | 1 || | || 13.00 | 16 |
|--------| || | || | |
| All | || | || | |
| others.| || | || | |
| 0.29 | 2 || 0.28 | 1 || 0.12 | 1 |
|--------|----------||--------|----------||--------|----------|
| 11.31 | 20 || 37.11 | 45 || 19.09 | 30 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
TABLE XXVI.
_Centesimal Scale (to nearest whole numbers)._
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|150 fraternal|Random.|Observed.| Utmost |Reduced | Reduced to |
| couplets. | | |possibilities.|to lower | upper |
| | | | |limit=0. | limit=100. |
|-------------|-------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|
| | | | | | Centesimal |
| | | | | | scale. |
| | | | | |--------------|
|Fore-finger | 11.31 | 20 | 115 |0 9 104 |0 deg. 9 deg. 100 deg.|
|Middle | 37.11 | 45 | 117 |0 10 80 |0 deg. 10 deg. 100 deg.|
|Ring | 19.09 | 31 | 118 |0 12 99 |0 deg. 12 deg. 100 deg.|
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Mean |0 deg. 10 deg. 100 deg.|
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|50 additional| | | | | |
| couplets. | | | | | |
|-------------| | | | | |
|Middle finger| | | | | |
|only | 8.2 | 11 | 22 |0 3 14 |0 deg. 21 deg. 100 deg.|
|-------------|-------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------|
| Loops only, | | | | | |
|and on middle| | | | | |
| finger only.| | | | | |
|-------------| | | | | |
|150 couplets | 34.0 | 35 | 72 |0 1 72 |0 deg. 1-1/4 deg. 100 deg.|
|50 couplets | 6.4 | 7 | 14 |0 0.6 8 |0 deg. 8 deg. 100 deg.|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Table XXIV. contains all the Observed events, and is to be read thus,
beginning at the first entry. Pattern No. 1 occurs on the right
fore-finger fifteen times among the A brothers, and twelve times among the
B brothers; while in four of these cases both brothers have that same
pattern.
Table XXV. compares the Random events with the Observed ones. Every case
in which the calculated expectation is equal to or exceeds 0.05, is
inserted in detail; the remaining group of petty cases are summed together
and their totals entered in the bottom line. For fear of misapprehension
or forgetfulness, one other example of the way in which the Randoms are
calculated will be given here, taking for the purpose the first entry in
Table XXIV. Thus, the number of all the different combinations of the 150
A with the 150 B individuals in the 150 couplets, is 150 x 150. Out of
these, the number of double events in which pattern No. 1 would appear in
the same combination, is 15 x 12 = 180. Therefore in 150 trials, the
double event of pattern No. 1 would appear upon the average, on 180
divided by 150, or on 1.20 occasions. As a matter of fact, it appeared
four times. These figures will be found in the first line of Table XXV.;
the rest of its contents have been calculated in the same way.
Leaving aside the Randoms that exceed 0 but are less than 1, there are
nineteen cases in which the Random may be compared with the Observed
values; in all but two of these the Observed are the highest, and in these
two the Random exceed the Observed by only trifling amounts, namely, 5.18
Random against 5.00 Observed; 1.87 Random against 1.00 Observed. It is
impossible, therefore, to doubt from the steady way in which the Observed
values overtop the Randoms, that there is a greater average likeness in
the finger marks of two brothers, than in those of two persons taken at
hazard.
Table XXVI. gives the results of applying the centesimal scale to the
measurement of the average closeness of fraternal resemblance, in respect
to finger prints, according to the method and under the reservations
already explained in page 125. The average value thus assigned to it is a
little more than 10 deg. The values obtained from the three fingers
severally, from which that average was derived, are 9 deg., 10 deg., and 12 deg.; they
agree together better than might have been expected. The value obtained
from a set of fifty additional couplets of the middle fingers only, of
fraternals, is wider, being 21 deg. Its inclusion with the rest raises the
average of all to between 10 and 11.
In the pre-eminently frequent event of loops with an outward slope on the
middle finger, it is remarkable that the Random cases are nearly equal to
the Observed ones; they are 34.08 to 35.00. It was to obtain some
assurance that this equality was not due to statistical accident, that the
additional set of fifty couplets were tabulated. They tell, however, the
same tale, viz. 6.4 Randoms to 7.0 Observed. The loops on the fore-fingers
confirm this, showing 5.18 Randoms to 5.00 Observed; those on the
ring-finger have the same peculiarity, though in a slighter degree, 13 to
16: the average of other patterns shows a much greater difference than
that. I am unable to account for this curious behaviour of the loops,
which can hardly be due to statistical accident, in the face of so much
concurrent evidence.
_Twins._--The signs of heredity between brothers and sisters ought to be
especially apparent between twins of the same sex, who are physiologically
related in a peculiar degree and are sometimes extraordinarily alike. More
rarely, they are remarkably dissimilar. The instances of only a moderate
family resemblance between twins of the same sex are much less frequent
than between ordinary brothers and sisters, or between twins of opposite
sex. All this has been discussed in my _Human Faculty_. In order to test
the truth of the expectation, I procured prints of the fore, middle, and
ring-fingers of seventeen sets of twins, and compared them, with the
results shown in Table XXVII.
TABLE XXVII.
17 SETS OF TWINS (A and B).
_Comparison between the patterns on the Fore, Middle, and Ring-fingers
respectively of the Right hand._
Agreement (=), 19 cases; partial (..), 13 cases; disagreement (x), 19
cases.
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| | A B | A B | A B | A B | A B |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|Fore | 42 = 42 | 21 = 21 | 40 = 40 | 6 = 6 | 1 = 1 |
|Middle| 42 = 42 | 8 = 8 | 32 x 42 | 15 .. 32 | 42 = 42 |
|Ring | 42 = 42 | 8 = 8 | 42 = 42 | 33 = 33 | 40 x 19 |
| | | | | | |
|Fore | 42 = 42 | 43 x 15 | 1 = 1 | 15 x 34 | 2 .. 42 |
|Middle| 42 = 42 | 42 .. 40 | 1 x 40 | 42 = 42 | 42 = 42 |
|Ring | 42 .. 46 | 35 = 35 | 40 .. 42 | 14 x 32 | 42 x 14 |
| | | | | | |
|Fore | 49 .. 14 | 15 x 49 | 15 .. 16 | 1 x 42 | 1 x 15 |
|Middle| 42 = 42 | 23 x 14 | 19 x 42 | 42 .. 48 | 32 x 22 |
|Ring | 9 .. 32 | 14 .. 16 | 6 .. 18 | 42 x 8 | 18 x 23 |
| | | | | | |
|Fore | 48 x 33 |(loop) x 9 | | | |
|Middle| 42 x 22 | 48 x 22 | | | |
|Ring | 14 .. 6 | 9 .. 35 | | | |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
The result is that out of the seventeen sets (=51 couplets), two sets
agree in all their three couplets of fingers; four sets agree in two; five
sets agree in one of the couplets. There are instances of partial
agreement in five others, and a disagreement throughout in only one of the
seventeen sets. In another collection of seventeen sets, made to compare
with this, six agreed in two of their three couplets, and five agreed in
one of them. There cannot then be the slightest doubt as to the strong
tendency to resemblance in the finger patterns in twins.
This remark must by no means be forced into the sense of meaning that the
similarity is so great, that the finger print of one twin might
occasionally be mistaken for that of the other. When patterns fall into
the same class, their general forms may be conspicuously different (see p.
74), while their smaller details, namely, the number of ridges and the
minutiae, are practically independent of the pattern.
It may be mentioned that I have an inquiry in view, which has not yet been
fairly begun, owing to the want of sufficient data, namely to determine
the minutest biological unit that may be hereditarily transmissible. The
minutiae in the finger prints of twins seem suitable objects for this
purpose.
_Children of like-patterned Parents._--When two parents are alike, the
average resemblance, in stature at all events, which their children bear
to them, is as close as the fraternal resemblance between the children,
and twice as close as that which the children bear to either parent
separately, when the parents are unlike.
The fifty-eight parentages affording fifty couplets of the fore, middle,
and ring-fingers respectively give 58 x 3 = 174 parental couplets in all;
of these, 27 or 14 per cent are alike in their pattern, as shown by Table
XXVIII. The total number of children to these twenty-seven pairs is 109,
of which 59 (or 54 per cent) have the same pattern as their parents. This
fact requires analysis, as on account of the great frequency of loops, and
especially of the pattern No. 42 on the middle finger, a large number of
the cases of similarity of pattern between child and parents would be mere
random coincidences.
TABLE XXVIII.--_Children of like-patterned Parents._
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The 27 | Patterns of-- F. M. | --of Sons. | Alike. | Total |
| cases. | | | | sons. |
|--------|-----------------------|-----------------|--------|-------|
| 1 | Fore 1 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 34 34 | 34 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | 40 40 | 41 | ... | 1 |
| 4 | 42 42 | 48 | ... | 1 |
| | | | | |
| 5 | Middle 40 40 | 40 | 1 | 1 |
| 6 | 42 42 | 42 | 1 | 1 |
| 7 | 42 42 | 42 | 1 | 1 |
| 8 | 42 42 | 42, 38, 42, 42 | 3 | 4 |
| 9 | 42 42 | 42 | 1 | 1 |
| 10 | 42 42 | 48, 48, 14 | 1 | 4 |
| 11 | 42 42 | 42 | 1 | 1 |
| 12 | 42 42 | 40 | ... | 1 |
| 13 | 42 42 | 1 | ... | 1 |
| 14 | 42 42 | 42 | 1 | 1 |
| 15 | 42 42 | 42, 46, 42 | 2 | 3 |
| 16 | 42 42 | 34, 42 | 1 | 2 |
| 17 | 42 42 | 42 | 1 | 1 |
| 18 | 42 42 | ... | ... | ... |
| | | | | |
| 19 | Ring 14 14 | 33, 42, 14 | 1 | 3 |
| 20 | 14 14 | 42, 16 | ... | 2 |
| 21 | 14 14 | 6 | ... | 1 |
| 22 | 42 42 | 40 | ... | 1 |
| 23 | 42 42 | 42, 42, 42 | 3 | 3 |
| 24 | 42 42 | ... | ... | ... |
| 25 | 42 42 | 42, 42 | 2 | 2 |
| 26 | 42 42 | 49, 14 | ... | 2 |
| 27 | 46 46 | 48, 40, 16 | ... | 4 |
| | | |--------|-------|
| | | | 22 | 41 |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| --of Daughters. | Alike. | Total || Total |Alike.|
| | | daughters. ||children.| |
|----------------------------|--------|------------||---------|------|
| 1, 1 | 2 | 2 || 3 | 3 |
| 42, 48 | ... | 2 || 3 | 1 |
| 2, 40 | 1 | 2 || 3 | 1 |
| 42 | 1 | 1 || 2 | 1 |
| | | || | |
| 40 | 1 | 1 || 2 | 2 |
| ... | ... | ... || 1 | 1 |
| 40 | ... | 1 || 2 | 1 |
| 40, 1 | ... | 2 || 6 | 3 |
| 40, 42 | 1 | 2 || 3 | 2 |
| 42, 42, 48, 42, 42 | 4 | 5 || 9 | 5 |
| 1, 40 | ... | 2 || 3 | 1 |
| 42, 42, 42, 42 | 4 | 4 || 5 | 4 |
| ... | ... | ... || 1 | ... |
| 42, 42, 42 | 3 | 3 || 4 | 4 |
| 42, 42, 42, 42, 42, 42, 42 | 3 | 3 || 4 | 4 |
| 33, 42 | 1 | 2 || 4 | 2 |
| 40, 42, 1 | 1 | 3 || 4 | 2 |
| 42, 42 (twins) | 2 | 2 || 2 | 2 |
| | | || | |
| 32, 40 | ... | 2 || 5 | 1 |
| 16, 14, 42, 42 | 1 | 4 || 6 | 1 |
| 9, 35, 48, 32, 14 | 1 | 5 || 6 | 1 |
| 40 | ... | 1 || 2 | ... |
| 40, 42 | 1 | 2 || 5 | 4 |
| 40, 42 | 1 | 2 || 2 | 1 |
| 42, 40, 42 | 2 | 3 || 5 | 4 |
| 42, 42, 42 | 3 | 3 || 5 | 3 |
| 16, 38 | ... | 2 || 6 | ... |
| |--------|------------||---------|------|
| Daughters | 37 | 65 || | |
| Sons | 22 | 44 || | |
| |--------|------------|| | |
| Total Children | 59 | 109 || 109 | 59 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
There are nineteen cases of both parents having the commonest of the loop
patterns, No. 42, on a corresponding finger. They have between them
seventy-five children, of whom forty-eight have the pattern No. 42, on the
same finger as their parents, and eighteen others have loops of other
kinds on that same finger, making a total of sixty-six coincidences out of
the possible 75, or 88 per cent, which is a great increase upon the normal
proportion of loops of the No. 42 pattern in the fore, middle, and
ring-fingers collectively. Again, there are three cases of both parents
having a tendrilled-loop No. 15, which ranks as a whorl. Out of their
total number of seventeen children, eleven have whorls and only six have
loops.
Lastly, there is a single case of both parents having an arch, and all
their three children have arches; whereas in the total of 109 children in
the table, there are only four other cases of an arch.
This partial analysis accounts for the whole of the like-patterned
parents, except four couples, which are one of No. 34, two of No. 40, and
one of No. 46. These concur in telling the same general tale, recollecting
that No. 46 might almost be reckoned as a transitional case between a loop
and a whorl.
The decided tendency to hereditary transmission cannot be gainsaid in the
face of these results, but the number of cases is too few to justify
quantitative conclusions. It is not for the present worth while to extend
them, for the reason already mentioned, namely, an ignorance of the
allowance that ought to be made for related patterns. On this account it
does not seem useful to print the results of a large amount of tabulation
bearing on the simple filial relationship between the child and either
parent separately, except so far as appears in the following paragraph.
_Relative Influence of the Father and the Mother._--Through one of those
statistical accidents which are equivalent to long runs of luck at a
gaming table, a concurrence in the figures brought out by Mr. Collins
suggested to him the existence of a decided preponderance of maternal
influence in the hereditary transmission of finger patterns. His further
inquiries have, however, cast some doubt on earlier and provisional
conclusions, and the following epitomises all of value that can as yet be
said in favour of the superiority of the maternal influence.
The fore, middle, and ring-fingers of the right hands of the father,
mother, and all their accessible children, in many families, were
severally tabulated under the fifty-three heads already specified. The
total number of children was 389, namely 136 sons and 219 daughters. The
same pattern was found on the same finger, both of a child and of one or
other of his parents, in the following number of cases:--
TABLE XXIX.
_Relative Influence of Father and Mother._
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |Fore.|Middle.|Ring.|| Totals. | Corrected | |
| | | | || | Totals. | |
|---------------------|-----|-------|-----||---------|-----------|-----|
| Father and son | 17 | 35 | 28 || 80 | 80 |}149 |
| " " daughter | 29 | 52 | 30 || (111) | 69 |} |
| | | | || | | |
| Mother and son | 18 | 50 | 26 || 94 | 94 |}186 |
| " " daughter | 38 | 75 | 35 || (148) | 92 |} |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
The entries in the first three columns are not comparable on equal terms,
on account of the large difference between the numbers of the sons and
daughters. This difference is easily remedied by multiplying the number of
daughters by 136/219, that is by 0.621, as has been done in the fifth
column headed Corrected Totals. It would appear from these figures, that
the maternal influence is more powerful than the paternal in the
proportion of 186 to 149, or as 5 to 4; but, as some of the details from
which the totals are built up, vary rather widely, it is better for the
present to reserve an opinion as to their trustworthiness.
CHAPTER XII
RACES AND CLASSES
The races whose finger prints I have studied in considerable numbers are
English, pure Welsh, Hebrew, and Negro; also some Basques from Cambo in
the French Pyrenees, twenty miles south-east of Bayonne. For the Welsh
prints I am primarily indebted to the very obliging help of Mr. R. W.
Atkinson, of Cardiff, who interested the masters of schools in purely
Welsh-speaking mountainous districts on my behalf; for the Hebrew prints
to Mr. Isidore Spielman, who introduced me to the great Hebrew schools in
London, whose head-masters gave cordial assistance; and for the Negro
prints to Sir George Taubman Goldie, Dep. Governor of the Royal Niger Co.,
who interested Dr Crosse on my behalf, from whom valuable sets of prints
were received, together with particulars of the races of the men from whom
they were made. As to the Basques, they were printed by myself.
It requires considerable patience and caution to arrive at trustworthy
conclusions, but it may emphatically be said that there is no _peculiar_
pattern which characterises persons of any of the above races. There is
no particular pattern that is special to any one of them, which when met
with enables us to assert, or even to suspect, the nationality of the
person on whom it appeared. The only differences so far observed, are
statistical, and cannot be determined except through patience and caution,
and by discussing large groups.
I was misled at first by some accidental observations, and as it seemed
reasonable to expect to find racial differences in finger marks, the
inquiries were continued in varied ways until hard fact had made hope no
longer justifiable.
After preliminary study, I handed over the collection of racial finger
prints to Mr F. Howard Collins, who kindly undertook the labour of
tabulating them in many ways, of which it will be only necessary to give
an example. Thus, at one time attention was concentrated on a single
finger and a single pattern, the most instructive instance being that of
arches on the right fore-finger. They admit of being defined with
sufficient clearness, having only one doubtful frontier of much
importance, namely that at which they begin to break away into
nascent-loops, etc. They also occur with considerable frequency on the
fore-finger, so the results from a few hundred specimens ought to be
fairly trustworthy. It mattered little in the inquiry, at what level the
limit was drawn to separate arches from nascent-loops, so long as the same
limit was observed in all races alike. Much pains were taken to secure
uniformity of treatment, and Mr. Collins selected two limits, the one
based on a strict and the other on a somewhat less strict interpretation
of the term "arches," but the latter was not so liberal as that which I
had used myself in the earlier inquiries (see p. 114). His results showed
no great difference in the proportionate frequency of arches in the
different races, whichever limit was observed; the following table refers
to the more liberal limit:--
TABLE XXX.
_Frequency of Arches in the Right Fore-Finger._
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| No. of | Race. | No. of | Per Cents. |
| Persons. | | Arches. | |
|----------|----------------------------------|---------|------------|
| 250 | English | 34 | 13.6 |
| 250 | Welsh | 26 | 10.8 |
| 1332 | Hebrew | 105 | 7.9 |
| 250 | Negro | 27 | 11.3 |
| | | | |
| | _Hebrews in detail_-- | | |
| 500 | Boys, Bell Lane School | 35 | 7.0 |
| 400 | Girls, Bell Lane School | 34 | 8.5 |
| 220 | Boys, Tavistock St. & Hanway St. | 18 | 8.2 |
| 212 | Girls, Hanway Street School | 18 | 8.5 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
The two contrasted values here are the English and the Hebrew. The 1332
cases of the latter give a percentage result of 7.9, which differs as may
be seen less than 1 per cent from that of any one of the four large groups
upon which the average is based. The 250 cases of English are
comparatively few, but the experience I have had of other English prints
is so large as to enable me to say confidently that the percentage result
of 13.6 is not too great. It follows, that the percentage of arches in the
English and in the Hebrew differs in the ratio of 13.6 to 7.9, or nearly
as 5 to 3. This is the largest statistical difference yet met with. The
deficiency in arches among the Hebrews, and to some extent in loops also,
is made up by a superiority in whorls, chiefly of the tendril or
circlet-in-loop patterns.
It would be very rash to suppose that this relative infrequency of arches
among the Hebrews was of fundamental importance, considering that such
totally distinct races as the Welsh and the Negro have them in an
intermediate proportion. Still, why does it occur? The only answer I can
suggest is that the patterns being in some degree hereditary, such
accidental preponderances as may have existed among a not very numerous
ancestry might be perpetuated. I have some reason to believe that local
peculiarities of this sort exist in England, the children in schools of
some localities seeming to be statistically more alike in their patterns
than English children generally.
Another of the many experiments was the tabulation separately by Mr.
Collins of the fore, middle, and ring-fingers of the right hand of fifty
persons of each of the five races above-mentioned: English, Welsh, Basque,
Hebrew, and different groups of Negroes. The number of instances is of
course too small for statistical deductions, but they served to make it
clear that no very marked characteristic distinguished the races. The
impressions from Negroes betray the general clumsiness of their fingers,
but their patterns are not, so far as I can find, different from those of
others, they are not simpler as judged either by their contours or by the
number of origins, embranchments, islands, and enclosures contained in
them. Still, whether it be from pure fancy on my part, or from the way in
which they were printed, or from some real peculiarity, the general aspect
of the Negro print strikes me as characteristic. The width of the ridges
seems more uniform, their intervals more regular, and their courses more
parallel than with us. In short, they give an idea of greater simplicity,
due to causes that I have not yet succeeded in submitting to the test of
measurement.
The above are only a few examples of the laborious work so kindly
undertaken for me by Mr. F. H. Collins, but it would serve no useful
purpose to give more in this book, as no positive results have as yet been
derived from it other than the little already mentioned.
The most hopeful direction in which this inquiry admits of being pursued
is among the Hill tribes of India, Australian blacks, and other diverse
and so-called aboriginal races. The field of ethnology is large, and it
would be unwise as yet to neglect the chance of somewhere finding
characteristic patterns.
* * * * *
Differences between finger prints of different classes might continue to
exist although those of different races are inconspicuous, because every
race contains men of various temperaments and faculties, and we cannot
tell, except by observation, whether any of these are correlated with the
finger marks. Several different classes have been examined both by Mr.
Collins and myself. The ordinary laboratory work supplies finger prints of
persons of much culture, and of many students both in the Art and in the
Science schools. I took a large number of prints from the worst idiots in
the London district, through the obliging assistance of Dr. Fletcher
Beech, of the Darenth Asylum; my collections made at Board Schools are
numerous, and I have one of field labourers in Dorsetshire and
Somersetshire. But there is no notable difference in any of them. For
example; the measurements of the ridge-interval gave the same results in
the art-students and in the science-students, and I have prints of eminent
thinkers and of eminent statesmen that can be matched by those of
congenital idiots.[5] No indications of temperament, character, or ability
are to be found in finger marks, so far as I have been able to discover.
Of course these conclusions must not be applied to the general shape of
the hand, which as yet I have not studied, but which seems to offer a very
interesting field for exact inquiry.
CHAPTER XIII
GENERA
The same familiar patterns recur in every large collection of finger
prints, and the eye soon selects what appear to be typical forms; but are
they truly "typical" or not? By a type I understand an ideal form around
which the actual forms are grouped, very closely in its immediate
neighbourhood, and becoming more rare with increasing rapidity at an
increasing distance from it, just as is the case with shot marks to the
right or left of a line drawn vertically through the bull's eye of a
target. The analogy is exact; in both cases there is a well-defined point
of departure; in both cases the departure of individual instances from
that point is due to a multitude of independently variable causes. In
short, both are realisations of the now well-known theoretical law of
Frequency of Error. The problem then is this:--take some one of the
well-marked patterns, such as it appears on a particular digit,--say a
loop on the right thumb; find the average number of ridges that cross a
specified portion of it; then this average value will determine an ideal
centre from which individual departures may be measured; next, tabulate
the frequency of the departures that attain to each of many successive
specified distances from that ideal centre; then see whether their
diminishing frequency as the distances increase, is or is not in
accordance with the law of frequency of error. If it is, then the central
form has the attributes of a true type, and such will be shown to be the
case with the loops of either thumb. I shall only give the data and the
results, not the precise way in which they are worked out, because an
account of the method employed in similar cases will be found in _Natural
Inheritance_, and again in the Memoir on Finger Prints in the _Phil.
Trans._; it is too technical to be appropriate here, and would occupy too
much space. The only point which need be briefly explained and of which
non-mathematical readers might be ignorant, is how a single numerical
table derived from abstract calculations can be made to apply to such
minute objects as finger prints, as well as to the shot marks on a huge
target; what is the common unit by which departures on such different
scales are measured? The answer is that it is a self-contained unit
appropriate to _each series severally_, and technically called the
Probable Error, or more briefly, P.E., in the headings to the following
tables. In order to determine it, the range of the central half of the
series has to be measured, namely, of that part of the series which
remains after its two extreme quarters have been cut off and removed. The
series had no limitation before, its two ends tailing away indefinitely
into nothingness, but, by the artifice of lopping off a definite fraction
of the whole series from both ends of it, a sharply-defined length, call
it PQ, is obtained. Such series as have usually to be dealt with are
fairly symmetrical, so the position of the half-way point M, between P and
Q, corresponds with rough accuracy to the average of the positions of all
the members of the series, that is to the point whence departures have to
be measured. MP, or MQ,--or still better, 1/2(MP + MQ) is the
above-mentioned Probable Error. It is so called because the amount of
Error, or Departure from M of any one observation, falls just as often
within the distance PE as it falls without it. In the calculated tables of
the Law of Frequency, PE (or a multiple of it) is taken as unity. In each
observed series, the actual measures have to be converted into another
scale, in which the PE of that series is taken as unity. Then observation
and calculation may be compared on equal terms.
[Illustration]
Observations were made on the loops of the right and left thumbs
respectively. AHB is taken as the primary line of reference in the loop;
it is the line that, coinciding with the axis of the _uppermost portion_,
and that only, of the core, cuts the summit of the core at H, the upper
outline at A, and the lower outline, if it cuts it at all, as it nearly
always does, at B. K is the centre of the single triangular plot that
appears in the loop, which may be either I or O. KNL is a perpendicular
from K to the axis, cutting it at N, and the outline beyond at L. In some
loops N will lie above H, as in Plate 4, Fig. 8; in some it may coincide
with H. (See Plate 6 for numerous varieties of loop.) These points were
pricked in each print with a fine needle; the print was then turned face
downwards and careful measurements made between the prick holes at the
back. Also the number of ridges in AH were counted, the ridge at A being
reckoned as 0, the next ridge as 1, and so on up to H. Whenever the line
AH passed across the neck of a bifurcation, there was necessarily a single
ridge on one side of the point of intersection and two ridges on the
other, so there would clearly be doubt whether to reckon the neck as one
or as two ridges. A compromise was made by counting it as 1-1/2. After the
number of ridges in AH had been counted in each case, any residual
fractions of 1/2 were alternately treated as 0 and as 1. Finally, six
series were obtained; three for the right thumb, and three for the left.
They referred respectively (1) to the Number of Ridges in AH; (2) to
KL/NB; (3) to AN/AH, all the three being independent of stature. The
number of measures in each of the six series varied from 140 to 176; they
are reduced to percentages in Table XXXI.
We see at a glance that the different numbers of ridges in AH do not occur
with equal frequency, that a single ridge in the thumb is a rarity, and so
are cases above fifteen in number, but those of seven, eight, and nine
are frequent. There is clearly a rude order in their distribution, the
number of cases tailing away into nothingness, at the top and bottom of
the column. A vast amount of statistical analogy assures us that the
orderliness of the distribution would be increased if many more cases had
been observed, and later on, this inference will be confirmed. There is a
sharp inferior limit to the numbers of ridges, because they cannot be less
than 0, but independently of this, we notice the infrequency of small
numbers as well as of large ones. There is no strict limit to the latter,
but the trend of the entries shows that forty, say, or more ridges in AH
are practically impossible. Therefore, in no individual case can the
number of ridges in AH depart very widely from seven, eight, or nine,
though the range of possible departures is not sharply defined, except at
the lower limit of 0. The range of variation is _not_ "rounded off," to
use a common but very inaccurate expression often applied to the way in
which genera are isolated. The range of possible departures is not defined
by any rigid boundary, but the rarity of the stragglers rapidly increases
with the distance at which they are found, until no more of them are met
with.
The values of KL/NB and of AN/AH run in a less orderly sequence, but
concur distinctly in telling a similar tale. Considering the paucity of
the observations, there is nothing in these results to contradict the
expectation of increased regularity, should a large addition be made to
their number.
TABLE XXXI.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | No. of cases || | No. of cases || | No. of cases |
| | reduced || | reduced || | reduced |
|No. of| to per cents.|| KL | to per cents.|| AN | to per cents.|
|ridges|--------------|| -- |--------------|| -- |--------------|
|in AH.| Right.| Left.|| NB | Right.| Left.|| AH | Right.| Left.|
| |-------|------|| |-------|------|| |-------|------|
| | 171 | 166 || | 149 | 140 || | 176 | 163 |
| | cases.| cases|| | cases.| cases|| | cases | cases|
|------|-------|------||-------|-------|------||-------|-------|------|
| 1 | 1 | ... ||0.3-0.4| 3 | 2 ||0.1-0.2| 2 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 | 1 ||0.5-0.6| 8 | 11 ||0.3-0.4| 7 | 3 |
| 3 | 2 | 3 ||0.7-0.8| 9 | 14 ||0.5-0.6| 11 | 3 |
| 4 | 2 | 5 ||0.9-1.0| 21 | 18 ||0.7-0.8| 9 | 9 |
| 5 | 3 | 5 ||1.1-1.2| 16 | 23 ||0.9-1.0| 22 | 15 |
| 6 | 4 | 18 ||1.3-1.4| 24 | 7 ||1.1-1.2| 15 | 13 |
| 7 | 8 | 14 ||1.5-1.6| 8 | 10 ||1.3-1.4| 12 | 12 |
| 8 | 8 | 16 ||1.7-1.8| 3 | 6 ||1.5-1.6| 11 | 14 |
| 9 | 11 | 10 ||1.9-2.0| 5 | 6 ||1.7-1.8| 8 | 10 |
| 10 | 9 | 8 ||2.1-2.2| 1 | 1 ||1.9-2.0| 1 | 5 |
| 11 | 14 | 10 || above | 2 | 2 ||2.1-2.2| ... | ... |
| 12 | 11 | 8 || ... | ... | ... ||2.3-2.4| 1 | 6 |
| 13 | 10 | 2 || ... | ... | ... ||2.5-2.6| ... | 4 |
| 14 | 7 | ... || ... | ... | ... ||2.7-2.8| ... | 3 |
| 15 | 6 | ... || ... | ... | ... ||2.9-3.0| ... | 1 |
|above | 2 | ... || ... | ... | ... || above | 1 | 1 |
| |-------|------|| |-------|------|| |-------|------|
| | 100 | 100 || | 100 | 100 || | 100 | 100 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
TABLE XXXII.
+---------------------------------------------+
| |Ordinates to the six schemes of |
| |Distribution, being the ordinates|
| |drawn from the base of each |
| |scheme at selected centesimal |
| |divisions of the base. |
| Abscissae |---------------------------------|
| reckoned | |
| in | No. of ridges in AH. |
| centesimal| |
| parts of |---------------------------------|
| the | Right. | Left. |
| interval |----------------|----------------|
| between | O |Calculated| O |Calculated|
| the limits| b |from | b |from |
| of the | s |M=10.4 | s |M=7.8 |
| scheme. | e |p.e.=2.3 | e |p.e.=1.9 |
| 0 deg. to | r | | r | |
| 100 deg. | v | | v | |
| | e | | e | |
| | d | | d | |
|-----------|-----|----------|-----|----------|
| 5 | 3.8 | 4.8 | 3.8 | 3.2 |
| 10 | 5.5 | 6.0 | 4.8 | 4.2 |
| 20 | 7.3 | 7.5 | 5.8 | 5.4 |
| 25 | 7.9 | 8.1 | 6.1 | 5.9 |
| 30 | 8.5 | 8.6 | 6.4 | 6.3 |
| 40 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 7.1 | 7.4 |
| 50 |10.5 | 10.4 | 7.8 | 7.8 |
| 60 |11.3 | 11.3 | 8.4 | 8.2 |
| 70 |12.1 | 12.2 | 9.3 | 9.3 |
| 75 |12.5 | 12.7 | 9.9 | 9.7 |
| 80 |13.0 | 13.3 |11.0 | 10.2 |
| 90 |14.3 | 14.8 |11.5 | 11.4 |
| 95 |15.0 | 16.0 |12.2 | 12.2 |
+---------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| KL || AN |
| Values of -- || Values of -- |
| NB || AH |
|---------------------------------||----------------------------------|
| Right. | Left. || Right. | Left. |
|----------------|----------------||----------------|-----------------|
| O |Calculated| O |Calculated|| O |Calculated| O |Calculated |
| b |from | b |from || b |from | b |from |
| s |M=1.15 | s |M=1.10 || s |M=1.08 | s |M=1.36 |
| e |p.e.=0.25 | e |p.e.=0.31 || e |p.e.=0.30 | e |p.e.=0.36 |
| r | | r | || r | | r | |
| v | | v | || v | | v | |
| e | | e | || e | | e | |
| d | | d | || d | | d | |
|-----|----------|-----|----------||-----|----------|-----|-----------|
|0.54 | 0.54 |0.49 | 0.35 ||0.36 | 0.32 |0.58 | 0.48 |
|0.64 | 0.67 |0.59 | 0.51 ||0.50 | 0.48 |0.74 | 0.68 |
|0.85 | 0.84 |0.78 | 0.71 ||0.66 | 0.67 |0.96 | 0.91 |
|0.91 | 0.90 |0.83 | 0.79 ||0.79 | 0.75 |1.00 | l.00 |
|0.99 | 0.95 |0.89 | 0.86 ||0.87 | 0.82 |1.04 | 1.08 |
|1.05 | 1.05 |1.00 | 0.98 ||0.98 | 0.93 |1.21 | 1.22 |
|1.15 | 1.15 |1.10 | 1.10 ||1.04 | 1.05 |1.37 | 1.36 |
|1.29 | 1.25 |1.18 | 1.22 ||1.18 | 1.17 |1.48 | 1.50 |
|1.33 | 1.35 |1.32 | 1.34 ||1.31 | 1.28 |1.66 | 1.64 |
|1.41 | 1.40 |1.46 | 1.41 ||1.39 | 1.35 |1.73 | 1.72 |
|1.45 | 1.46 |1.53 | 1.49 ||1.48 | 1.43 |1.90 | 2.81 |
|1.77 | 1.63 |1.73 | 1.69 ||1.69 | 1.62 |2.23 | 2.04 |
|2.00 | 1.76 |1.80 | 1.85 ||1.81 | 1.78 |2.48 | 2.24 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
TABLE XXXIII.
+-------------------------------------------------------
| | Ordinates to the six curves of |
| | distribution, drawn from the axis of |
| | each curve at selected centesimal |
| | divisions of it. |
| | |
| | They are here reduced to a common |
| | measure, by dividing the observed |
| | deviations in each series by the |
|Abscissae | probable error appropriate to the |
|reckoned in | series, and multiplying by 100. For the |
|centesimal | values of M, whence the deviations are |
|parts of the| measured, and for those of the |
|interval | corresponding probable error, see the |
|between the | headings to the columns in Table II. |
|limits of |-----------------------------------------|
|the curve. | No. of | KL | AN |
|0 deg.to100deg. | Ridges |Values of -- |Values of -- |
| | in AH. | NB | AH |
| |-------------|-------------|-------------|
| |Right.| Left.|Right.| Left.|Right.| Left.|
|------------|------|------|------|------|-------------|
| 5 | -291 | -211 | -244 | -196 | -230 | -217 |
| 10 | -213 | -158 | -204 | -164 | -183 | -172 |
| 20 | -135 | -105 | -120 | -103 | -130 | -111 |
|(P) 25 | -109 | - 84 | - 92 | - 87 | - 87 | -100 |
| 30 | - 83 | - 74 | - 64 | - 68 | - 60 | - 89 |
| 40 | - 44 | - 37 | - 44 | - 31 | - 23 | - 42 |
|(M) 50 | + 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 60 | + 39 | + 31 | + 56 | + 23 | + 43 | + 33 |
| 70 | + 74 | + 79 | + 72 | + 68 | + 87 | + 83 |
|(Q) 75 | + 91 | +116 | +104 | +116 | +113 | +103 |
| 80 | +113 | +168 | +120 | +138 | +143 | +150 |
| 90 | +170 | +200 | +248 | +203 | +213 | +242 |
| 95 | +200 | +231 | +340 | +225 | +253 | +311 |
+-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------+
| | |
| Observed. | Calculated. |
|------------------|-----------------|
| Mean of the | |
| corresponding | |
| ordinates in | |
| the six curves | |
| after reduction | |
| to the common | Ordinates to |
| scale of | the normal curve|
| p.e. = 100. | of distribution,|
| 965 observations | probable error |
| in all. | = 100. |
|------------------|-----------------|
| -231 | -244 |
| -182 | -190 |
| -117 | -125 |
| - 93 | -100 |
| - 73 | - 78 |
| - 37 | - 38 |
| + 1 | 0 |
| + 38 | + 38 |
| + 77 | + 78 |
| +107 | +100 |
| +139 | +125 |
| +213 | +190 |
| +260 | +244 |
-------------------------------------+
Table XXXII. is derived from Table XXXI. by a process described by myself
in many publications, more especially in _Natural Inheritance_, and will
now be assumed as understood. Each of the six pairs of columns contain,
side by side, the Observed and Calculated values of one of the six series,
the data on which the calculations were made being also entered at the
top. The calculated figures agree with the observed ones very respectably
throughout, as can be judged even by those who are ignorant of the
principles of the method. Let us take the value that 10 per cent of each
of the six series falls short of, and 90 per cent exceed; they are entered
in the line opposite 10; we find for the six pairs successively,
_Obs._: 5.5 4.8 0.64 0.59 0.50 0.74
_Calc._: 6.0 4.2 0.67 0.51 0.48 0.68
The correspondence between the more mediocre cases is much closer than
these, and very much closer than between the extreme cases given in the
table, namely, the values that 5 per cent fall short of, and 95 exceed.
These are of course less regular, the observed instances being very few;
but even here the observations are found to agree respectably well with
the proportions given by calculation, which is necessarily based upon the
supposition of an infinite number of cases having been included in the
series.
As the want of agreement between calculation and observation must be
caused in part by the paucity of observations, it is worth while to make
a larger group, by throwing the six series together, as in Table XXXIII.,
making a grand total of 965 observations. Their value is not so great as
if they were observations taken from that number of different persons,
still they are equivalent to a large increase of those already discussed.
The six series of observed values were made comparable on equal terms by
first reducing them to a uniform PE and then by assigning to M, the point
of departure, the value of 0. The results are given in the last column but
one, where the orderly run of the observed data is much more conspicuous
than it was before. Though there is an obvious want of exact symmetry in
the observed values, their general accord with those of the calculated
values is very fair. It is quite close enough to establish the general
proposition, that we are justified in the conception of a typical form of
loop, different for the two thumbs; the departure from the typical form
being usually small, sometimes rather greater, and rarely greater still.
I do not see my way to discuss the variations of the arches, because they
possess no distinct points of reference. But their general appearance does
not give the impression of clustering around a typical centre. They
suggest the idea of a fountain-head, whose stream begins to broaden out
from the first.
As regards other patterns, I have made many measurements altogether, but
the specimens of each sort were comparatively few, except in whorled
patterns. In all cases where I was able to form a well-founded opinion,
the existence of a typical centre was indicated.
It would be tedious to enumerate the many different trials made for my own
satisfaction, to gain assurance that the variability of the several
patterns is really of the quasi-normal kind just described. In the first
trial I measured in various ways the dimensions of about 500 enlarged
photographs of loops, and about as many of other patterns, and found that
the measurements in each and every case formed a quasi-normal series. I do
not care to submit these results, because they necessitate more
explanation and analysis than the interest of the corrected results would
perhaps justify, to eliminate from them the effect of variety of size of
thumb, and some other uncertainties. Those measurements referred to some
children, a few women, many youths, and a fair number of adults; and
allowance has to be made for variability in stature in each of these
classes.
The proportions of a typical loop on the thumb are easily ascertained if
we may assume that the most frequent values of its variable elements,
taken separately, are the same as those that enter into the most frequent
combination of the elements taken collectively. This would necessarily be
true if the variability of each element separately, and that of the sum of
them in combination, were all strictly normal, but as they are only
quasi-normal, the assumption must be tested. I have done so by making the
comparisons (_A_) and (_B_) shown in Table XXXIV., which come out
correctly to within the first decimal place.
TABLE XXXIV.
+------------------------------------------------------+
| |Right | Left |
| |Thumb.|Thumb.|
|----------------------------------------|------|------|
|(_a_) Median of all the values of KL | 12.5 | 10.1 |
|(_b_) Median of all the values of NB | 10.1 | 8.9 |
| |------|------|
|(_A_) Value of _a/b_ | 1.24| 1.11|
|(_A_) Median of all the fractions KL/NB| 1.15| 1.10|
|========================================|======|======|
|(_c_) Median of all the values of AN | 4.6 | 4.6 |
|(_d_) Median of all the values of AH | 4.4 | 3.3 |
| |------|------|
|(_B_) Value of _c/d_ | 1.05| 1.40|
|(_B_) Median of all the fractions AN/AH| 1.08| 1.36|
+------------------------------------------------------+
It has been shown that the patterns are hereditary, and we have seen that
they are uncorrelated with race or temperament or any other noticeable
peculiarity, inasmuch as groups of very different classes are alike in
their finger marks. They cannot exercise the slightest influence on
marriage selection, the very existence both of the ridges and of the
patterns having been almost overlooked; they are too small to attract
attention, or to be thought worthy of notice. We therefore possess a
perfect instance of promiscuity in marriage, or, as it is now called,
panmixia, in respect to these patterns. We might consequently have
expected them to be hybridised. But that is not the case; they _refuse to
blend_. Their classes are as clearly separated as those of any of the
genera of plants and animals. They keep pure and distinct, as if they had
severally descended from a thorough-bred ancestry, each in respect to its
own peculiar character.
As regards other forms of natural selection, we know that races are kept
pure by the much more frequent destruction of those individuals who depart
the more widely from the typical centre. But natural selection was shown
to be inoperative in respect to individual varieties of patterns, and
unable to exercise the slightest check upon their vagaries. Yet, for all
that, the loops and other classes of patterns are isolated from one
another just as thoroughly and just in the same way as are the genera or
species of plants and animals. There is no statistical difference between
the form of the law of distribution of individual Loops about their
respective typical centres, and that of the law by which, say, the Shrimps
described in Mr. Weldon's recent memoirs (_Proc. Roy. Soc._, 1891 and
1892) are distributed about theirs. In both cases the distribution is in
quasi-accordance with the theoretical law of Frequency of Error, this form
of distribution being entirely caused in the patterns, by _internal_
conditions, and in no way by natural selection in the ordinary sense of
that term.
It is impossible not to recognise the fact so clearly illustrated by these
patterns in the thumbs, that natural selection has no monopoly of
influence in the construction of genera, but that it could be wholly
dispensed with, the internal conditions acting by themselves being
sufficient. When the internal conditions are in harmony with the external
ones, as they appear to be in all long-established races, their joint
effects will curb individual variability more tightly than either could do
by itself. The normal character of the distribution about the typical
centre will not be thereby interfered with. The probable divergence (=
probable error) of an individual taken at random, will be lessened, and
that is all.
Not only is it impossible to substantiate a claim for natural selection,
that it is the sole agent in forming genera, but it seems, from the
experience of artificial selection, that it is scarcely competent to do so
by favouring mere _varieties_, in the sense in which I understand the
term.
My contention is that it acts by favouring small _sports_. Mere varieties
from a common typical centre blend freely in the offspring, and the
offspring of every race whose _statistical_ characters are constant,
necessarily tend, as I have often shown, to regress towards their common
typical centre. Sports, on the other hand, do not blend freely; they are
fresh typical centres or sub-species, which suddenly arise we do not yet
know precisely through what uncommon concurrence of circumstance, and
which observations show to be strongly transmissible by inheritance.
A mere variety can never establish a sticking-point in the forward course
of evolution, but each new sport affords one. A substantial change of type
is effected, as I conceive, by a succession of small changes of typical
centre, each more or less stable, and each being in its turn favoured and
established by natural selection, to the exclusion of its competitors. The
distinction between a mere variety and a sport is real and fundamental. I
argued this point in _Natural Inheritance_, but had then to draw my
illustrations from non-physiological experiences, no appropriate
physiological ones being then at hand: this want is now excellently
supplied by observations of the patterns on the digits.
INDEX
AH, number of ridges in, 200
Allix, 60
A. L. W. system, 80
Ambiguities in minutiae, 91, 111
America, 163
Anthropometric laboratory, 4, 35
Arches, 7, 75, 78;
interpretations of, 114, 193
Artisans, 59
Artists, 58
Assyrian bricks, 25
Atkinson, R. F., 192
Author, the, finger prints of, 8, 58, 73
Axis of pattern, 68
Ball for inking, 42
Ball of thumb, 96
Basques, 18, 192
Bearings as by compass, 84
Beech, Dr. Fletcher, 197
Benzole, 36, 41
Bertillon, 2, 15, 154, 169;
_Bertillonage_, 155, 164, 167
Bewick, 26
Bible, the, 22
Bifurcations, 91
Binomial law, 11, 112
Bird's nest, 34
Blacklead, 49
Blood as ink, 45
Bowditch, H. P., Professor, 47
British Museum, 25
Brobdingnags, 1
Brothers, 171
Burns of finger, 59
C. set of standard patterns, 177
Callosities, 59
Cambo, 18, 192
Camera lucida, 52, 104
Cards, 38;
keeping in order, 145
Casts, 49
Centesimal scale, 12, 17, 124, 129, 182
Cheiromancy, 1, 26;
creases, 56
Chequer-work, 106
Chess board, 106
Chinese deed, 24;
money, 25;
cheiromancy, 26;
registration of Chinese, 26, 152
Cicatrix, 59
Circular patterns, optical illusion, 77
Collins, F. H., 17, 21, 177, 190, 193
Collodion, 51
Colour-blindness, 71
Comparison of prints, 90, 167
Compass bearings, 84
Compasses, test by the points of, 61
Copper sheeting for inking, 42;
for smoking, 48
Cores, 6, 76, 145
Correlation, 158
Couplets of digits, 119;
of A and B brothers, 172
Creases, 1, 56;
in infant, 57
Criminals, 149
Crosse, Dr., 192
Cylinder, revolving, 49
Dabs by the finger, 40, 90, 153
Darenth Asylum, 19, 197
Demography, Congress of, 163
Deserters, 149, 164
Development, 58
Digits, peculiarities of, 114
Direction of twist, 78
Divergence of ridges, 68
Drawing master, 48
Ducts, 57
Dyes, 44
Ear-marking the A, B sets of brothers, 172
Embryology, 58
Enclosures within ridges, 92
English, the, 17, 192
Enlargements, 51
Envelopes to rods or staples, 76
Error, law of, 19, 198;
"probable," 199
EVIDENTIAL VALUE, Chap. VII., 100
Evolution, 20, 60
Eyes in patterns, 143
Fauld, Mr., 26
Feet, prints of, 45;
ridges on, 57, 58
Fere, M., 197
Ferris, Major, 149
Ferro-prussiate process, 51, 53, 90
File, 63
Flexure, lines of, in palm, 56
Focus of eye, range of, 72
Folders;--inked, 42;
smoked, 48
Foot-paths, 107
Forgeot, Dr., 46
Forks, 91
Fraternity, 16, 171
Frequency of error, law of, 19, 198
Funnel, 36
Furrows, not followed, 82
G----, Sir W., 89, 97
GENERA, Chap. XIII., 198;
the nine chief genera, 6, 80
Glass, temporary prints on, 30;
etched, 47;
for lantern, 51
Glue, 48
Goldie, Sir G. T., 192
Granulations on rollers, 34
Greenleaf, Col. C. R., 164
Gulliver, 1
Gum, 48
Gutta-percha, 50
Hand, 23, 45
Harrild, Messrs., 36, 41
Hawksley, 42
Haycraft, Dr. J. B., 51
Head-length and breadth, 158
Hebrews, 18, 192, 194
Herbette, M., 168
HEREDITY, Chap. XI., 170;
_see also_ 16
Herschel, Sir W. J., 4, 9, 27;
instructions for printing, 45;
data for persistence, 89;
right fore-finger of, 95;
official experience, 27, 149, 153
Hindoos, 152
I (or Inner side), 70
Identification, 147;
_see_ Jezebel, 113
Idiots, 8, 19, 59, 197
Illusion, 66, 77
Indexing, power of, 14, 139, 167;
methods of, 131;
specimen of, 133;
search in, 166
India-rubber for roller, 40
Ink, printer's, 37;
for stamp, 45
Inner side, 70
Interpolation of ridges, 102, 104
Interspace, 54, 67
Interval, equally discernible, 65, 101
Islands, 92
Japan, 23, 26
Jews, 18, 192, 194
Jezebel, 113
Kensington, S., my laboratory at, 4, 35
Klaatsch, Dr. H., 60
Kollmann, Dr. A., 58
Labels, gummed, as for luggage, 48
Laboratory, anthropometric, 4, 35
Labourers, 59, 197
Lace, 9, 98
Ladies' hands, ridges on, 32
Language, inadequacy of, 172
Lankester, Prof. Ray, 45
Left and right, 70
Lenses, 72
Letters, alike when reversed, 71
Licked paper, 48
Linen-tester (lens), 73
Linseed oil, 37
Litharge, 35
Lithography, 43
Loops, 7, 75, 78;
predominance of, 101;
relationships of, 184;
on thumbs, 200;
typical shape of, 207
Lying Bob, 27
Lyon, 155
Mammalia, 60
Marseille, 155
Measurement of patterns, 82
Memoirs by the author, 3
METHODS OF INDEXING, Chap. IX., 131
METHODS OF PRINTING, Chap. III., 30
Mica, 47, 51
Minutiae, 54;
ambiguities in, 91, 99
Monkey pattern, 18, 54, 77;
ridges on tail, 60;
Purkenje on, 86, 88;
stuffed, 97
Morgue, 148;
_see_ Jezebel, 113
Mould for casting rollers, 40
Mountain ranges, 32
Mucilage, 48
Mummies, ridges still visible, 97
Nail-marks, 25, 67
Natural selection, 20, 210
Negro, 18, 192, 195;
cheiromancy, 26
Ngeu-yang-siun, 25
Notes, musical, 63
Oil, oxidisation of, 34, 43;
for ink, 37
Orientation, 68
Outer side, 70
Outlines, 6, 69;
followed with a point, 74
Overtones, 63
Pacinian bodies, 60
Pad for stamp, 32, 44;
of paper, 38
Palm of the hand, 54, 88, 113
Palmistry, 1, 26;
_see_ Cheiromancy, 56
Panmixia, 20, 209
Pantagraph, 52
Paper in pads, 38;
_see_ Cards
Papillae, 60
Paraffin, 36
Paris, 155
Passports, 15, 149
Paste, 48
PATTERNS: THEIR OUTLINES AND CORES, Chap. V., 64;
_see also_ 2, 54, 170;
number of easily distinguishable patterns, 100;
standard, 74, 80;
ditto C. set, 177;
percentage frequency of, 115
PECULIARITIES OF THE DIGITS, Chap. VIII., 114
PERSISTENCE, Chap. VI., 89
PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION, Chap. X., 147;
_see also_ 16, 113;
lecture on, 2
Photographers, 147;
photographs, 3, 51
Plots, triangular, 67, 82
Plumbago, 49
Pocket printing apparatus, 40
Points of reference, 90
Poole, Mr. S. L., 25
Pores, 57
PREVIOUS USE OF FINGER PRINTS, Chap. II., 22
Printing, the methods of, 30;
printer's ink, 35
Prism, 52, 104
Purkenje's _Commentatio_, 84;
_see also_ 8, 64, 67;
on slope of loop, 119
RACES AND CLASSES, Chap. XII., 192;
_see also_ 17
Radial, 70
Random events, 172;
_see also_ 126
Razor, prints on, 30
Reconstruction of hidden ridges, 102
Reeves and Co., 35
Registration in India, 28, 151
Regression, 21, 171
Relationship in fingers, 12, 123;
fraternal, 171, 175;
in twins, 185;
filial, 190;
ditto of like-patterned parents, 187;
in patterns, 178;
paternal and maternal, 190
Reticulation, 108
Reversals, 43, 71
RIDGES AND THEIR USES, Chap. IV., 54;
_see also_ low relief of ridges, 32;
counting them, 73;
ridge-interval, 62:--measurement by, 83;
squares of one in the side, 102;
of six, 103;
of five, 107, 111
Right and left, 70
Robinson, Dr. Louis, 45
Rods, 76
Rolled prints, 7, 39, 68
Roller, 36;
small, 40
Royal Institution, 2
Sand, ridges on, 54
Scars, 59, 97
Seal, 22;
sealing-wax casts, 50
Seamstresses, 59
Selection, 20, 209
Shrimps, 210
_Signalements_, 156
Size (glue), 48, 49
Skin disease on fingers, 122
Slab, 4, 35, 41
Slopes, 136;
on fore-finger, 118
Smart, Major Charles, 164
Smoke-prints, 47
Snow on mountain ranges, 32
Soda (washing), 36, 41
Spielman, Isidore, Mr., 192
Spirals, 74
Sports, 20, 211
Squares (interpolations), 10, 101
Standard patterns, 74, 76;
the C. set, 177
Staples, 76, 83
Stereoscope, 9
Students, in Art and Science, 197
Surnames, Hindoo and Chinese, 14, 152
Swift, Dean, 1
Symbols for patterns, 144
Systems of ridges on palm, 54
Tables, _see_ list of, p. xiii.
Tabor, Mr., 26
Tabulations, 179
Tang dynasty, 25
Tattoo marks, 97
Taylor, T. Meadows, Mr., 24
Teeth, 166
Tests of calculated Randoms, 173;
of classification, 179
Thompson, Gilbert, Mr., 27, 44
Thrills, their relation to notes, 63
Thumb, loops on, 200;
ball of, 96, 98
_Tipsahi_, 24
Titchener, E. B., Mr., 62
Title-page, prints on, 8, 58, 73;
index-number to them, 135
Toes, 57
Tools, callosities caused by, 59
Transitional patterns, 79, 143, 178
Triangular plots, 67, 86, 87
Turpentine, 36
Twins, 17, 167, 185
Twist, direction of, 78
Type, 19, 198
Ulnar, 70
United States, system used in, 15, 164
Variation, 20, 211
Varnish, prints on when undried, 50
Velvet, 63
Wall-paper, 66
Water colours, 44
Wax;--sealing, 50;
dentist's, 50
Weldon, Prof., 210
Welsh, the, 17, 192
Wen-teh, the Empress, 25
Whitening, 49
Whorls, 7, 75, 78
Wundt, Professor, laboratory at Leipzig, 62
THE END
_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, _Edinburgh_.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _Der Tastapparat der Hand der menschlichen Rassen und der Affen._ Dr.
Arthur Kollmann. Leopold Voss, Leipzig, 1883. He has also published a more
recent memoir.
[2] "Morphologie der Tastballen der Saugethiere," _Jahrbuch_, xiv. p. 407.
Leipzig, 1888.
[3] _Ann. Sc. Nat._, 5th series, vol. ix. 1868.
[4] The Latin is obscure. "Mira vallecularum tangentium in interna parte
manus pedisque ... dispositio flexuraque attentionem ... in se trahit."
There are three ways of translating "tangentium," and none of them makes
good sense. In the index of prints he uses the phrase "vallecularum
tactui." It would seem that he looked upon the furrows, and not the
ridges, as the special seat of touch.
[5] The results arrived at by M. Fere in a Memoir (_Comptes Rendus, Soc.
Biologie_, July 2, 1891; Masson, 120 Boulevard St. Germain, Paris) may be
collated with mine. The Memoir is partly a review of my paper in the
_Phil. Trans._, and contains many observations of his own. His data are
derived from epileptics and others mentally affected. He has, by the way,
curiously misinterpreted my views about symmetry.
Transcriber's Notes:
Passages in italics are indicated by _italics_.
Superscripted characters are indicated by {superscript}.
Subscripted characters are indicated by =subscript=.
Characters in smaller font are indicated by ~small~.
Punctuation has been corrected without note.