Twin Sisters with 3 interdigital loops and whorl in loop of humor

anand_palm wrote:Hello all

looking at the hands and differences can you say they are left or right handed. my guess is they are left handed.

Anand

Patti wrote:...

By the way, I cannot see any interdigital whorls.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

PS. I am not impressed by 9 palmar triradii... I would prefer to describe that as 'within the range of normal'. Because most hands have 6 palmar triradii, and any hand with three loops under the fingers + one additional loop on the thenar or hypothenar would be featured with 9 palmar triradi (just like in the case of a whorl on the hypothenar combined with 2 loops under the fingers... and there are quite a few more combinations that have the same result).

So, my thought is that 9 palmar triradii should better not be recognized as 'unusual'.

Patti wrote:
9 ?

Not considering the fingerprints, just the palms, A typical minimum would be 3 triradii under the fingers - includes a Missing C pattern, and another triradius on the hypothenar or near the wrist. That would be a minimum and still normal range of triradii and that would be 4. Accessory triradii are not always present with interdigital loops. Also, it really isn't common to see interdigital patterns between each of the 5 digits.

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Yes Patti, 4 is where the 'normal' range starts ... but it is hard to say where it ends. All I can say is that 6 palmar triradii is typical for a human hand (6 = one triradius for each finger + 1), but I would consider 9 palmar triradii as still belonging to the category of 'normal/common variations' - though maybe we disagree about what is 'normal' and what is not...?

My estimate would be that it can be found in about 5% tot 10% in most populations, and therefore I would not describe it as 'special' nor 'unusual'.... but I think 10 or 11 palmar triradii is really much more rare!

(For example: think of this... about 5% to 10% in any population have a loop in the 2nd interdigital zone, and far most of them have 3 loops under the fingers... and a large percentage of those people will also have an extra loop/whorl in the thenar or hypothenar. So, this group could make about 2 to 3 percent of people. But there are other patterns that are relatively often featured with a high number of palmar triradii - so I am confident that my statistics from the autisme study is a representative number and 9 palmar triradii should be recognized as 'within the range of normal variations' because it is quite common, etc)

Patti wrote:

Isn't it one triradius for every loop plus 1? Because obviously if there can be 4 triradii in the hand and 5 digits - the theory of 6 is incorrect. A hand with all arch fingerprints and a missing C can still be only 4 triradii and have all five digits.
...

No Patti, that's not correct - the typical human palm usually has 6 5 palmar triradii + 1 palmar loop.

Remember, basically Penrose's formula is only meant for describing the palm, see for example: HERE

T + 1 = D + L

T = no. of palmar triradii
D = no. of digits (usually 5)
L = no. palmar loops.


Applying Penrose's formula for what you call 'the theory of 6', results in:

5 + 1 = 5 + 1

And regarding your example, when the c-triradius is missing there are typically no palmar loops at all, resulting in that Penrose's formula for such a hand would become:

4 + 1 = 5 + 0



PS. I have no idea why you assumed: 'one triradius for every loop plus 1', but it looks like you tried to count the loops on the fingers... without counting the triradii on those fingers. But if you had counted the triradii on the fingers as well then Penrose's forumula would work as well (asuming that a whorl needs to be counted for 2 loops, etc)!

Patti wrote:...

I would then see 4 as common as probably a missing C is found in a hand. EDIT:(Cummins & Midlo .2% in right and .6% in left) I think average would be 5 and 6 triradii per palm. Anything more than 6 or 7 would indicate a higher number of patterns and divisions of fields in the palms.

Patti, sounds like we agree that 4 palmar triradii can be described as 'common'.

However, I am sorry again... you also got confused in the terminology used by Cummins & Midlo ... because you just reported the percentages for the the condition closely allied to the abortive state (= X) where 'the line recurves distally to sue with itself or with a digit radiant' (= x) - see page 111 & 112 in Cummins & Midlo; the percentages for 'x' are 0.2% for the right hand and 0.6% for the left hand (see table 5 on page 111 in Cummins & Midlo).

By the way, the percentages for the 'missing C triradius' (= 'o' - according the terminology used by Cummins & Midlo's terminology) are actually:

Missing C triradius in right hand: 4.8%
Missing C triradius in left hand: 6.3%


Actually... these percentages indirectly confirm the validity of my point, since these percentages are of comparable size to the percentages that I have given in my earlier post for 9 palmar triradii. This shows that 4 palmar triradii are probably likewise common as 9 palmar triradii... and for this STATISTICAL reason I consider both as belonging to the category of 'normal variations'.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

T + 1 = D + L

T = no. of palmar triradii
D = no. of digits (usually 5)
L = no. palmar loops.

Patti wrote:...

I noticed that you changed the formula from your first post and added the loop to it. I don't need to work with such formulas. I just count the triradii that are present. (with the awareness of the off the side triradius on the hypothenar) Typically there is one under each finger and an axial triradius. That is 5. There can even be an interdigital loop with only 4 triradii under the fingers and a total of 5 in the palms. See figures 71 and 72 (pages 96 and 96 Finger Prints Palms & Soles)

Patti wrote:Regarding using x or X, I followed the guidelines on page 91 regarding Abortive Main LInes. My interpretation was the Tented Arch pattern is X as the radiant can be traced for a short distance and with x there is "no main line at all". EDIT: Ok, I now see that the missing C is labeled as "o" with the percentages you mentioned. When 95% of people do not have a configuration, I would consider the other 4 to 6 % that do as not so common. Cummins and Midlo put the normal/average percentages in bold. These are not in bold.

You obviously made a reading mistake concerning page 91, which says:

"In the degree of least development, there is, practically speaking no main line at all, though the triradius is present. This condition is formulated x, regardless of the line involved."

In this passage the words 'no main line at all' does not suggest that there is no triradius present. Since you associated the x with a 'missing c'... I think you probably associated those words 'no main line at all' with 'missing c'. Though the second part of the same sentence should have made the bells ringing (underlined above).

By the way, page 90 does describe the situation of a 'missing c':

"Lack of the triradius, and necessarily of the corresponding main line, is formulated by the symbol O, ..."


PS. Regarding, the 'bold' figures... those only relate to the 'preponderant terminations' (see the header of the table) - but since one of the bold percentages says '3.4' in table 5... I think it is obvious that the absolute size of the individual numbers is not directly involved in those 'bold' labels.

It is actually quite hard to understand what Cummins & Midlo exactly meant to say by labeling some of the numbers in 'bold'... because in table 5 they have written the numbers regarding condition 5' for Line B in 'bold' (R: 3.4; L:10.9)... however, regarding condition 5'' for Line A they have not labelled in 'bold' (R:11.6; L:4.8) - even while those last numbers are higher!???

So those 'bold' numbers do not relate to hard statistics, nor to 'normal/average percentages' (your words)... because the labels are inconsistent with the numbers. I think the bold labels probably reflect some of Cummins & Midlo's more extended experience - beyond the German sample involved in those statistics.

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

T + 1 = D + L

T = no. of palmar triradii
D = no. of digits (usually 5)
L = no. palmar loops.

Hi Martijn,
I've looked through many hand prints looking for the triradius under each of the 4 fingers without a loop. Interestingly, apparently if there is a triradius under each finger, the flow of main lines forces a loop either between little and ring or ring and middle. This probably has something to do with the logic behind the formula, as from there it's obvious with each additional loop there is an additional triradius. That's why triradii plus one is digits plus loops. Because 5 digits with the 5 triradii (including axial triradius) force an interdigital loop. Missing C is resulting in the 4 triradii (as example), results in no loops. 4 + 1 = 5 + 0.

There is one pattern that defies this. That is the tented arch under the ring finger. If there are no other loops and an axial triradius the result is 5 T + 1 = 6 does not equal D 5 + L 0 = 5

Or it changes the rules for a loop to a pattern that can straddle a triradius for Penrose's mathematical purposes.

To return to the subject here, I'm going to agree to disagree about having 9 triradii in a palm being common or not.

EDIT: I just found another exception to the rule in "Handbook of Clinical Dermatoglyphics" page 50. It shows an example with vertical alignment of the main lines and a missing C along with 1 interdigital loop between the ring and little. These 3 triradii plus the axial triradius make 4 triradii. T4 + 1 (does not equal) D5 + L1


Penrose's formula may not work in every case.

Excellent observations Patti!

But your 'unusual' examples can acutally be understood much further... with the help of Penrose's formula - but it requires here a little bit of 'thinking outside the box'.

Because, regarding the cerebral case one could wonder: how on earth can such a pattern evolve...? Because at first sight it appears to violate one of the 'natural' rules.

However, there is a simple explanation:

Triradius b and triradius c probably fused together into one triradius, and therefore if we had been confronted with a handprint... my attention would become focussed on the features of the triradius under the middle finger!

So, if one would find features in that hand which indicate that there is a fusion of triradii... Penrose's formula would work just fine... because one can use the concept of a 'virtual triradius'!

(One could even argue that the symbolic example itself represents evidence of a fusion, etc)


And the same is true for your 'tended arch under the ring finger' example. Because one can wonder again: how on earth can an 'abortive state' main line evolve?

The answer then becomes: because the ridge line does not end between the fingers... it ends in itself, resulting in an infinitely small loop - that is no longer present: the main line has sort of 'fused'(!) with itself! So, in those cases of an 'abortive state' main line one can count those as a 'virtual loop'.


The only problematic aspect of my 'thinking out of the box' here is ... that proper use of these 'virtual' elements probably require some understanding of how the dermatoglyphic elements evolved from the perspective of the volar pads.... plus maybe a little bit of imagination!

(Patti, I am confident that you have more than enough knowledge about volar pads to understand that what I have justed described ... perfectly make sense from the perspective of the nature how dermatoglyphic elements develop from the volar pads.)


PS. The alternative (more simple) explanation in a nut shell would be to say: that Penrose's formula usually works just fine... though in rare cases Penrose's formula may not 'appear' to work due to the tendency that triradii sometimes tend to 'fuse' with other triradii (and main line can sometimes 'fuse' with itself).

PPS. Oh my god... after my mistake we went so far away from Boaz's twin sister hands! (Sorry Boaz )

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti, I have to make an apology here... because I made a mistake in my writings last night; where I wrote:

"Because most hands have at least 6 palmar triradii..."

I should have mentioned the number 5 instead of 6.

(I have corrected this in my earlier writings)


So maybe I created myself some part of your confusion about what I wrote? Does this solve your problem?

PS. Regarding your 'theory of 6'... I am not familiar with this vocabulary, but maybe you were refering to the stereotype of 5 triradii + 1 loop (which is typical for the human hand)? Though I would now not be surprized that after I corrected my mistake you would now prefer to continue talking about the 'theory of 5'...???

Anyway, thanks for your feedback!

anand_palm wrote:Hello Patti, martijn

what about the triradii under the index finger, the main line from that does not form a loop. it usually runs accross mars mount or slopes down to the moon mount or can loop to mercury ( i guess there is paper which addresses saying there is a possbility which cummins had speculated that it can loop to mercury). does The formula L+D -1 consider L for loops flowing from saturn to mercury finger or is it part of D-1.

Anand

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Excellent observations Patti!

But your 'unusual' examples can acutally be understood much further... with the help of Penrose's formula - but it requires here a little bit of 'thinking outside the box'.

Because, regarding the cerebral case one could wonder: how on earth can such a pattern evolve...? Because at first sight it appears to violate one of the 'natural' rules.

However, there is a simple explanation:

Triradius b and triradius c probably fused together into one triradius, and therefore if we had been confronted with a handprint... my attention would become focussed on the features of the triradius under the middle finger!

So, if one would find features in that hand which indicate that there is a fusion of triradii... Penrose's formula would work just fine... because one can use the concept of a 'virtual triradius'!

(One could even argue that the symbolic example itself represents evidence of a fusion, etc)


And the same is true for your 'tended arch under the ring finger' example. Because one can wonder again: how on earth can an 'abortive state' main line evolve?

The answer then becomes: because the ridge line does not end between the fingers... it ends in itself, resulting in an infinitely small loop - that is no longer present: the main line has sort of 'fused'(!) with itself! So, in those cases of an 'abortive state' main line one can count those as a 'virtual loop'.


The only problematic aspect of my 'thinking out of the box' here is ... that proper use of these 'virtual' elements probably require some understanding of how the dermatoglyphic elements evolved from the perspective of the volar pads.... plus maybe a little bit of imagination!

(Patti, I am confident that you have more than enough knowledge about volar pads to understand that what I have justed described ... perfectly make sense from the perspective of the nature how dermatoglyphic elements develop from the volar pads.)


PS. The alternative (more simple) explanation in a nut shell would be to say: that Penrose's formula usually works just fine... though in rare cases Penrose's formula may not 'appear' to work due to the tendency that triradii sometimes tend to 'fuse' with other triradii (and main line can sometimes 'fuse' with itself).

PPS. Oh my god... after my mistake we went so far away from Boaz's twin sister hands! (Sorry Boaz )

PS. The alternative (more simple) explanation in a nut shell would be to say: that Penrose's formula usually works just fine... though in rare cases Penrose's formula may not 'appear' to work

anand_palm wrote:Hello Patti

I had mentioned earlier in this forum about the formula L+D-1 it is penrose who formulated it. My question is does D-1 triiraddi encpoasses the loop between saturn and mecury, iam not sure what main line would u categorize it.

Anand

anand_palm wrote:Hello Patti, Matijm

Why was the formula by penrose for triraddi designed for palm alone why did he not take into account for fingerprints, this was question whicc i had asked long back in this forum on total number of triraddii for which martijn had mentioned about study about autism ect which he was doing research. Is there any reason why palmar tridaii is treated seperately, is there any evolutionary logic behind it.

Anand