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

Patti wrote: At one time Sydney creases were clumped into the Simian category too. Many turn of the century writers take note of the single crease. They also take note when it's the heart line doing the transversing and the head line doing the transversing but they didn't know it was the Sydney line because those guys in Sydney may have not been born yet to name it.

Lynn wrote:

Patti wrote: At one time Sydney creases were clumped into the Simian category too. Many turn of the century writers take note of the single crease. They also take note when it's the heart line doing the transversing and the head line doing the transversing but they didn't know it was the Sydney line because those guys in Sydney may have not been born yet to name it.

Patti I hope you don't drop out of this discussion.

I'm a bit confused by your above comment. Maybe because I'm not aware when Sydney lines (or long transverse head lines) were clumped into Simian category.
Although the long transverse headline had not been called a 'sydney' yet, it is still a headline with a separate heartline.
...

Hi Lynn,

Yes exactly: you've described the major difference between the Sydney line and the simian line. And for that reason ... a 'Sydney line' should NOT be discribed as a 'simian line variant'.

However... from Patti's feedback I recognize that because the 'II+III' element is found in the Korean forumula for not only the simian line, but also the Sydney line AND the Suwon crease... I now recognize that the formulas themselves (edit after Lynn's comment:) CREATE some additional confusion.

EDIT: But I am also aware that this problem will only manifest when people start interpretating the meaning of certain aspects in these forumulas. And therefore I still think that the Korean researchers did a phantastic job... and basically there is no need to change anything in their article. However, when people start these forumulas in 'out of context' considerations then unwanted side-effects can shows up. That is probably the only thing that I really learned from our discussion at this forum - next to that this discussion has been very helpful for me to become aware of the details that are really required to recognize a Suwon crease..

(That that is why earlier today I have described the unwanted side-effects of these forumulas)

And therefore one can not understand the hand-fundamentals behind of these formulas without the accessory comments + illustrations in the article. The forumales are not detailed enough for that purpose.

I think this again clearly illustrates that Patti's conclusions (see for example the quote below)... is the result of seeing things 'out of context'! (But I can accept that I might not be able to convince every participant in this discussion)

Patti wrote:...
I will agree that we are talking about simian variants. The Sydney and Suwon are simian variants....

Lynn, now I would love to hear from you:
how does my observation regarding the side-effect of the Korean formulas sound to you?

Lynn wrote:hi Jeanette,
"Crease" is the word that scientists use to talk about the palmar lines, such as the "Simian Crease" instead of simian line, "Distal Transverse palmar crease" is the heartline, 'proximal transverse crease' is the headline etc. So basically it's a line! (but they are trying to categorise it as a particular formation of line).

Patti wrote:...

If we ignore the rules they lay out to follow on how to recognize and categorize all creases, including the Suwon crease, then that's acting as if the report is flawed.

And I don't think the report is flawed at all. They were quite on top of what they were doing. Even to the point of recognizing their formula for T-DoT works best on square palms and would have to be adjusted for 'tribes' with longer palms.

Perhaps you need more justification yourself to point out the Korean's were mistaken and you are keener at knowing what they meant to say than what they actually said.



If they do not mean II + III and Accessory II is the Suwon Crease, Then I'll be happy to call it the Cincinnati Crease and go on from there. Am I *all heart* or what!!!

...

Martijn (admin) wrote: this new comment again illustrates that the Korean formulas have an unwanted side-effect:

Because there is only a vocabulary similarity between how the Korean researchers have described the simian line (II+III), Sydney line (II+III plus accessory III), and the Suwon crease (II+III plus accessory II).

But this for sure does not implicate that the Sydney line and Suwon crease can also be described as a 'simian line' variants.

Martijn (admin) wrote:.....However... from Patti's feedback I recognize that because the 'II+III' element is found in the Korean forumula for not only the simian line, but also the Sydney line AND the Suwon crease... I now recognize that the formulas themselves CREATE some additional confusion.
............ And therefore one can not understand the hand-fundamentals behind of these formulas without the accessory comments + illustrations in the article. The forumales are not detailed enough for that purpose.

Lynn, now I would love to hear from you:
how does my observation regarding the side-effect of the Korean formulas sound to you?

Lynn wrote:Yes I agree with you Martijn. (by the way I think you made a typo - you wrote CREASE, did you mean CREATE?).
And this is what Patti's saying I think - that the formula could describe many variants on the Suwon line that are different to the illustration in the article. The article gives us a few more clues in accessory comments & illustrations. But still, I think it needs expanding on by the authors, because obviously it has created confusion. A bit ironic really, as their aim was to improve the analysis of palmar lines and make it clearer!

jeanette wrote:Hi all,
I thought when Martijin showed the prints and gave the information that the Suwon crease, as it says, is a crease, not a line or a branch, but an actual crease. So this would make it, indeed, a noteworth discovery Am I right?
Jeanette.

Hi Jeannette,

I think Lynn & I provided you some answers.
But did we answer the question that you had in mind regarding the 'vocabulary'?

(Please, you're very welcome to continue if you have further questions about the Suwon crease!)

asif amin wrote:Hello Lynn and Martijin,

Can we recongnize this palm have a suwon crease or just heart line splitting towards head line?

Hi Asif,

No, this is a rather normal 'splitting heart line'.

NOTICE: None of the branches continues to the thumb-side of the palm, but more important: I see no 'extra head line' either - which implicates that both of the major characteristics of a Suwon crease are... missing! So I think it is definitely not a Suwon crease.

Thanks for asking!!

Martijn (admin) wrote:
UPDATE!!!

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


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



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

Quote from the article (figure 5):

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Martijn (admin) wrote:

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

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


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

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


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

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

Patti wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Patti

Lynn wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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