close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

Continuous-variable quantification of dermatoglyphic whorl patterns A statistical study of angular measurements.

код для вставкиСкачать
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:161-171 (1990)
Continuous-Variable Quantification of Dermatoglyphic Whorl
Patterns: A Statistical Study of Angular Measurements
CHANCHAL SINGH mun KARL B MCKNIGHT
Department of Mathematics i C S i, Department of Biology iK B M),
St Lawrence University, Canton, New York 13617
KEY WORDS
Base angles, Tangent angles, Core, Triradius, Ridge
Count, Dermatoglyphics, Whorl patterns, Sex Discrimination
ABSTRACT
Core(s) and triradii of dermatoglyphic whorl patterns were
joined together to form triangles. Base angles of these triangles were measured
(in degrees). The tangent angle at the lower edge of a ridge crossing the
core-triradius line was also measured in degrees on each side of the whorl.
Significant differences and similarities of these angles were investigated for
unrelated Caucasian males and females by the use of Student’s t- and
Pearson’s r-tests. Angular findings were related to the corresponding information provided by ridge counts. Similarities and differences between males and
females are described.
Dermatoglyphic whorl patterns reflect
various genetic and environmental traits in
human populations and vary in ways that
have proved useful in the study of genetics
(Holt, 1968; Rostron, 1977; Wertelecki and
Plato, 19831, medical disorders (Wertelecki
et al., 1973; Schaumann and Alter, 1976;
Schaumann et al., 1982; Garruto et al.,
19831, criminology (FBI, 1979; Moses, 1987;
Hall, 19871, gerontology (Plato, 1978; Wertelecki and Plato, 1983). physical anthropology (Jantz, 1977; Pollitzer and Plato, 1979),
and sexual dimorphism (Arrieta et a]., 1987;
Dennis and Sunderland, 1979; Janz, 1977;
Karev, 1986; Micle and Kobyliansky, 1986,
1988; Goodson and Meier, 1986). However,
more extensive use of dermatogly hic atterns has been limited not only by t e in erent genotypic and phenotypic variability of
the patterns but by the discontinuous nature
of the dermatogly hic variables currently
used by most wor ers as well. Dermatoglyphic studies usually use ridge counts, a
discrete random variable. Statistical conclusions reached with ridge count data are often
questionable, unless large sample sizes permit the use of the central limit theorem.
However, in order to maintain the largeness
of the sample sizes, ridge counts of loops and
whorls have been mostly lumped together.
As a result, much of the potential information inherent in the dermatoglyphic patterns
K K
K
0
1990 WTLEY-IJSS, INC.
may have been either obscured or lost. Many
powerful statistical techniques such as analysis of variance, principal components, and
multiple linear regression assume that variables are distributed normally and that variances are homogeneous (Kleinbaum et al.,
1988; Sokal and Rohlf, 1981). Consequently,
the validity of many studies using these
techniques may be questionable (because of
smallness of sample sizes) if pooling of ridge
counts of loops and whorls were not done in
the hope of gaining more insight by studying
these patterns separately.
Even though most nonparametric statistical techniques comparable to corresponding
parametric techniques assume continuity of
the variables under study (Conover, 19711,
we are not aware of any digital dermatoglyphic studies using continuous variables.
Nor have we any knowledge of dermatoglyphic studies making use of nonparametric statistics, even though nonparametric
techniques permit small sample sizes. In the
present study, new variables of a continuous
type are introduced.
Inasmuch as the underlying causes of
medical disorders, criminal behavior, gerontology, and so forth, are very complex, we
believe that dermatoglyphic studies should
Received September 11,1987, accepted September 13,1989.
162
C. SINGH AND K.B. MCKNIGHT
not overlook possible variables that may be
potentially of greater complexity than ridge
counts. We hope this study inspires the
reader to explore new dimensions in the
study of digtal dermatoglyphics patterns.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Fingerprints of 300 unrelated North American Caucasian males and females were obtained using the inked pad method of Cummins and Midlo (1961). Equal numbers of
males and females were sampled. The fingerprints were projected onto white paper
taped to a wall approximately 2 m away from
an opaque projector. Each fingerprint’s image was thus approximately 10 cm x 20 cm.
This study presents only the results of finger rints having whorl patterns.
AT1 the whorls we examined had two triradii and one or two cores. A straight line
connecting a core to the nearest triradius
was called a CT (core-triradius) line (Fig. 1).
A core-triradius line was drawn the same
way as it is done in recording ridge counts.
We have followed Holt’s (1968) convention
and the CT lines drawn in Figures 1-3 are
from her book. A strai ht line joining the two
triradii was called a TgR (triradius) line. The
two CT lines were extended, if necessary, to
form a triangle AABC (Fig. 1).For the left
hand, the angles, <ABC and QACB, were
called the ulnar and the radial base angles
respectively. For the right hand, the angles,
QABC and -SACB,were called the radial and
ulnar base angles, respectively.
A tangent angle of a ridge was defined and
measured by the following procedure. A
point along the lower edge of a ridge was
marked 3 mm above the point of intersection
of the ridge with a CT line. A point was also
marked along the lower edge of a ridge 3 mm
below the point of intersection of a ridge and
the CT line. A straight line connecting the
two points was then extended to intersect
the TR line, this was called a tangent line.
Tangent angles were formed by the intersection of tangent lines and the TR line on either
side of the pattern. For a left hand some of
the radial tangent angles are QR,DC,
aR,EC, QR,FC and some of the ulnar tangent angles are QL,ZB, QL2YB as shown in
Figures 1-3. For a right hand some of the
ulnar tangent angles are QR,DC, QR,EC,
QR,FC and some of the radial tangent angles are QL,ZB, 4L2YB as shown in Figures
1-3.
Since the tangent angles of adjacent ridges
did not seem to vary considerably, measurements of these angles were taken for every
third ridge starting from the triradius. If the
third ridge did not cross the CT line, the
tangent angle of the next ridge was measured. The number of tangent an les is usually different for the two sides o f t e triangle
AABC because frequently there are a different number of ridges on the two sides of a
whorl pattern. Consequently, arithmetic averages of all the tangent angles on each side
of the triangle AABC were computed and
were reported as one value for each side for
each digt.
In a few cases (less than 1%of the entire
sample for any digit) a core or cores happened to be below the TR line. These patterns seem to be very important for identification purposes, but their base angles were
hard to interpret and behave like “outliers.”
Accordingly, they were discarded in this
study. Measurements of angles were made in
degrees.
In order to relate the present study with
previous work, we have performed univariate parametric tests (rather than nonparametric) for each digit and for each sex. The
paired-t-statistic was used to test for significant differences in arithmetic means between ulnar and radial base angles, ulnar
and radial tangent angles, and ulnar and
radial ridge counts. We also used the t statistic for univariate tests of sexual dimorphism
for each of the preceding six variables. Pearson’s r-test was used to determine significant correlations among the six variables.
Statistical significance was assessed at
Pc-O.05 unless otherwise noted.
Inasmuch as different digits of any given
subject do not necessarily have the same
dermatoglyphic pattern (Holt, 19681, analysis of variance, discriminant analysis, and
many multivariate techniques are inappropriate for sample sizes such as ours. In particular, it is not possible to construct a discriminant analysis based on all digits
because not all subjects have whorls on the
same digits. This is unlike the numerous
such studies done with ridge counts (e.g.,see
Micle and Kobyliansky, 1986). However, in
order to demonstrate how the new variables
described in this paper might compare with
already available dermatoglyphic measures
of sexual dimorphism, we selected R, (R4 is
one of the digits for which we have the most
data) for a stepwise discriminant analysis.
Ulnar and radial base angles, ulnar and
fl
CONTINUOUS VARIABLES AND DERMATOGLYPHIC WHORLS
163
males and 150females included in this study
is given in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. For
males (Table 31, ulnar base angles were significantly higher than radial base angles of
digits LI, Lg, and L5 (PS0.064) and RI, R4,
and R5 (P~0.013).Radial tangent angles
were significantlyhigher than the ulnar tanRESULTS
gent angles for digitis LI, LB, and L4
A statistical summary of four angular (P~0.047)and RI, R4, and R5 ( P ~ 0 . 0 0 3 ) .
measures and two ridge counts for the 150 Similarly, radial ridge counts were signifi-
radial tangent angles, and ulnar and radial
ridge counts for males and females of digit R4
were entered into the SAS (Ray,1982)STEPDISC routine. Default significance levels
(0.15) for variable entry and retention were
used.
Fig. 1. Base and tangent angles of a symmetric whorl
pattern. The line, TR connects the two triradii. CT, and
CT, are core-triradius lines. L,-L, and R,-R, are tangent lines. For a left-hand print, the angles dABC and
aACB, are the ulnar and radial base angles. The angles,
QR,DC, dR,EC, and QR,FC are some of the radial
tangent angles. The angles, QL,ZB, QL,YB are two of
the ulnar tangent angles. See methods for a more detailed description ofthe construction ofthis figure. (Modified from Halt (1968),with permission.)
164
C. SINGH AND K.B. MCKNIGHT
Fig. 2. Base and tangent angles of a double loop whorl pattern. See Figure 1 for construction
details.
cantiv higher than ulnar ridge counts for
digits R,, R,, R,, (PS0.003)and digits L1, L,,
and L, (PS0.004), whereas ulnar ridge
counts were significantly higher than radial
ridge counts for digit L, (PS0.003).
For females (Table 31, ulnar base angles
were significantly higher than radial base
angles of digit Rl, RB, and R, and L,
(PsO.044).Radial tangent angles were significantly higher than ulnar tangent angles
for digits R, and R3 (PS0.051) and L,,. L,,
and L, (PS0.04). Similarly, radial ridge
counts were significantly higher than ulnar
ridge counts for digits R,, R3, R4,and R5
(Ps0.0221, and L,, L,, and L, (PS0.053).
Digit R3 presented an interesting contrast
between males and females. For males none
of the three differences was statistically significant, however, for females all three were
statistically significant (PS0.051)(Table 3).
Similarly, digit L3 of males showed signifi-
cant differences only of tangent angles,
whereas L, of females presented significant
differences in tangent angles and ridge
counts (PS0.053).In contrast, R2 showed no
significant differences for either males or
females.
Measurements of new variables, in relationship to sexual dimorphism, differed from
ridge counts on digits R,, R,, R,, L1, and L,
(Table 4). There were significant differences
between males and females on digits R,
(with respect to total ridge count) and digit
L2 (with respect to ulnar ridge count). However, none of the new variables showed any
significant differences on these digits. There
were significant differences between males
and females on digit R, (with respect to
radial tangent angle), on R4 (with respect to
ulnar tangent angle), and on L, (with respect
to ulnar base angle). For these three digits,
none of the ridge count variables showed any
CONTINUOUS VARIABLES AND DERMATOGLYPHIC WHORLS
165
Fig. 3. Base and tangent angIes of a spiral whorl pattern. See Figure 1 for construction
details.
significant differences. It is interesting to
note that only L5 presented si ificant differences between males and emales with
res ect to both the radial base angle and
ra ial ridge count.
Correlation analysis brought out more
similarities between males and females. For
both sexes (Tables 5 and 61, there was a
significant negative correlation between the
radial tan ent angle and the radial base
angle for igits R,, R3, R,, L,, L,, and L,;
between the ulnar tangent angle and ulnar
P
B
%
base angle for R2,R3, R4,and L2;between the
radial ridge count and the radial base angle
for digits R2, R4,and L,; between the ulnar
ridge count and the ulnar base angle for
digits R,, RS, L2,L3, and L4;and between the
radial ridge count and the ulnar base angle
for digit L,. For both males and females, we
observed a significant positive correlation
between the radiaI ridge count and the radial
tangent angle for digits R,, R,, and Lz; between the ulnar ridge count and the ulnar
tangent angle on digits R1, R,, R3,R,, L1, and
166
C. SINGH AND K.B. MCKNIGHT
TABLE 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Four Trigonometric Measures and Ridge Counts for the Digits of
150 Unrelated Caucasian Males
Digit
N
R1
56
29
19
42
15
46
40
R2
R3
R4
R5
Ll
La
I,?
L;
16
30
9
L.>
Radial
base
angle
Ulnar
base
angle
Radial
tangent
angle
Ulnar
tangent
angle
28.8 i
8.6
41.8 f 12.1
46.6 i 12.9
41.6 i11.4
36.1 i10.0
33.5 i
9.4
43.9 i15.1
44.9 It 7.8
40.7 i
8.0
:x,4 i s.3
37.8 k 24.0
39.2 i 11.2
46.5 i13.9
53.3 i14.6
50.9 i 17.0
40.5 i11.7
40.3 I 10.5
45.9 i
14.8
54.1 rt 13.6
46.2 L iG.2
80.8 i
8.4
72.2 i 1 4 . 6
71.2 1 1 4 . 9
76.3 -i- 13.7
81.8 i
8.9
69.6 i11.0
75.4 t 15.2
72.7 t 14.0
64.2 i17.1
55.9 i
22.9
62.3 i 12.6
75.2 i14.5
68.4 I 18.1
66.7
-., F 13.9
83.7 i 7.3
68.7 t 14.5
80.5 i10.3
80.5 1 1 0 . 4
61.1 I6.6
Radial
no. of
ridges
__.__..
rh.2 i 3i.7
Ulnar
no. of
ridges
19.8 i4.2
13.6 i
4.3
15.5 i
5.4
17.4 i- 4.3
16.9 i 3.0
14.8 i 4.8
15.1 i 4.1
14.5 i 5.0
12.5 t 4.4
9.3 I 3.6
18.2 I 3.6
12.8 i4.3
16.4 i 3.7
3.6
18.4 i
4 7 . i i 2.8
13.4 i
4.5
16.0 f 4.4
15.2 + fin
13.0 i
3.6
~
Y.b ? 4.5
TABLE 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Four Trigonometric Measures and Ridge Counts for the Fingers of
150 1Jnrelated Caucasian Females
Digit
N
Radial
base
angle
R,
47
44
12
37
12
28.6 i- 7.7
41.6 i
9.3
39.3 5 12.3
41.3 i
11.7
38.1 i12.1
33.4 i12.8
38.3 f 12.1
54.8 f 14.2
47.7 i 14.3
46.4 i
16.7
46
31
17
31
33.7 i 8.3
44.7 i 12.6
42.4 i
7.3
40.5 f 10.2
47.3 i
10.3
33.9 i
13.6
41.3 i
9.6
51.2 -t 14.5
55.0 i13.6
43.4 i
6.8
~.
R;
R3
R4
R5
L1
L‘i
LJ
L4
L5
10
Ulnar
base
angle
Radial
tangent
angle
Ulnar
tangent
angle
Radial
no. of
ridges
Ulnar
no. of
ridges
80.6 i
7.7
70.7 t 13.0
81.6 i11.7
75.4 i
10.6
76.6 f 12.7
82.3 5 7 . 3
67.5 I 17.0
76.8 I 11.0
81.3 i- 9.7
76.6 i
9.7
69.6 i11.6
73.4 t 15.2
63.7 i 20.6
73.2 i 12.1
68.5 i 19.8
19.9 i 3.2
12.6 i- 3.8
17.3 i 3.9
17.3 i- 4.1
17.3 i 4.4
14.0 i 5 . 2
13.3rt 5.0
13.0 i- 5.6
14.0 i
4.3
11.3 i
3.7
66.3 i 13.8
72.6 i
11.7
66.9 i
13.0
66.9 i 13.7
74.6 F 9.7
18.8 i4.0
12.9 i 4.4
15.8 i
3.5
18.2 F 4.2
12.7 i 2.3
14.7 i5.4
13.9 i 4.0
13.8 i- 4.6
13.0 i
4.3
12.0 i
3.6
TABLE 3. Student’s Paired t-Test with Associated P Values between Ulnar Base Angle (UBA)and Radial Base Angle
(RBAj, the Ulnar Tangent Angle (UTAj and the Radial Tangent Angle (RTA), and the U h a r Ridge Count (URC)
and the Radial Ridge Count (RRCj
Males
REP,
Sampie
size
(h’)
R1
Rz
R3
R4
R,j
L1
Lz
L3
I,4
LS
56
29
19
42
15
41
40
16
30
9
.T.
1 %
UBA
t
P
...____
___.
nT A
RRC
YS.
VS.
LlLil
UTA
t _- P
-2.70/0.009
5.58/0.000
0.85/0.400
-0.73/0.470
0.02/0.980 -0.26/0.800
-4.10/0.000
3.21/0.003
-2.83/0.013
3.73/0.002
--3.32/0.002
9.22/0.000
1.21/0.240
-1.64/0.110
-0.25/0.810
2.17/0.047
-4.80/0.000
4.14/0.000
0.42/0.690
-2.15/0.064
URC
t
P
Females
RTA
Sampie
size
(N)
RBA
vs.
UBA
t
P
47
44
12
37
12
46
31
17
31
10
-2.70/0.010
1.27/0.210
-2.39/0.036
-2.09/0.044
--1.60/0.140
-0.07/0.950
1.05/0.300
--1.82/0.087
-5.90/0.000
1.26/0.240
VS.
UTA
t
P
~~~
7.20/0.000
-1.16/0.250
0.65/0.320
7.41/0.000
9.66/0.000
5.93/0.000
-3.11/0.003
0.90/0.380
7.35/0.000
4.05/0.004
L,; between the radial ridge count and the
ulnar ridge count for digits R1 and L4.
Males and females differed most notably
in the correlation analyses (Tables 5 and 6)
when the radial base angles were compared
with ulnar base angles (significantly posi-
5.14/0.000
-0.76/0.450
2.19/0.051
0.74/0.460
1.17/0.270
6.20/0.000
-1.11/0.270
2.23/0.040
4.11/0.000
0.46/0.660
RRC
vs.
URC
t
P-
7.68/0.000
-0.90/0.370
2.651’0.022
3.98/0.000
3.49/0.005
4.84/0.000
-0.90/0.380
2.09/0.053
7.32/0.000
0.47/0.650
tive for digits R1 and Lq of females but not of
males, significantly negative for L, of females but not of males). Radial base angles
were positively correlated with ulnar tangent angles for digits R,, R3 of females but
not of males. Ulnar base angles and radial
167
CONTINUOUS VARIABLES AND DERMATOGLYPHIC WHORLS
TABLE 4. C o m m r i s o n s (Studenti; t-Testi between Males and Females for Seven DematodvDhic Measures.’,2
RBA
t
RTA
UBA
P
Ri
R:,
R:]
-0.12/0.900
-0.10/0.920
K4
-0.12/0.910
- 1.5$/0.130
t
P
-1.19l0.240
-0.34/0.730
1.59/0.130
-1.87/0.066
Rr,
0.45/0.650
-0.69/0.490
Li
O.OXI’0.930
L:!
L:I
-0.95/0.350
-2.43/0.017*
0.44/0.660
1.04/0.310
0.27/0.790
L1
Lz
0.23l0.820
--0.11/0.920
2.24/0.039*
-0.70/0.500
t
RRC
UTA
P
t
-0.11/0.920
P
0.02/0.980
-0.57/0.570
-0.45/0.660
2.16/0.040*
-0.32/0.7!3
-1.20/0.240
t
0.09/0.930
-1.03/0.310
-1.32/0.200
2.71/0.008*
1.541’0.140
--0.86/0.390
1.4 lI’0.160
-0.32/0.750
-0.85/0.400
-0.99/0.330
-0.28/0.780
0.08/0.940
0.29/0.770
--1.05/0.310
-1.18i0.860
URC
-____
P
1.07/0.290
-
0.06/0.950
0.31/0.760
0.67/0.500
0.07/0.940
-0.49/0.630
-0.24/0.810
--3.71/0.002*
t
P
-0.85/0.400
-1.69/0.096
0.77/0.450
1.55l0.120
1.35l0.190
1.23/0.220
-2.07/0.043*
-0.73l0.470
O.OOI’O.999
1.31/0.210
TRC
t
P
--0.55/0.580
---2.11/0.038*
0.09/0.930
0.92/0.360
1.08l0.290
1.24/0.220
--1.40/0.170
-0.73/0.470
-0.14/0.890
--0.97/0.350
‘Uinar base angir ~l;r)X,.iadS!iasc 3ng!. (RR4’ xlnw tanwnt, angle (UTA),radialtangent angle (RTA),ulnarridge count (URC),radial
gdge count (RRC), and total (ulnar + radial! ridge count (TRC).
See Tables 1 and 2 for sample sizes and average values and standard deviations for each sex.
*Comparisons significant a t P 5 0.05.
tangent angles were positively correlated for
digit L, of females but not of males.
We also observed a si ificant negative
correlation: between the u nar tangent angle
and the ulnar base angle on digit L3 for males
but not of females, between the radial ridge
count and the radial base angle on digit R3 of
males but not of females, between the radial
ridge count and the radial base angle on di ‘t
R, of females but not of males; between t e
radial ridge count and the ulnar tangent
angle on digit L, of males but not of females;
between the ulnar ridge count and the radial
tangent angle on digits RI and R, of females
but not of males (Tables 5 and 6). Our data
also differed significant1 between the sexes
for the correlation of ra ial ridge count and
ulnar base angle of digit R1 and for the
correlation of ulnar ridge count and radial
base angle of digit L,. Similar differences
were exhibited by digit R, for the correlation
of radial ridge count and ulnar tan ent an le
and the correlation between the u nar ri ge
count and radial tangent angle of digit L,. A
significant positive correlation between ulnar ridge count and radial base angle on
digits R1 and R5 of males was not shared by
the females.
The stepwise discriminant analysis of the
R4 data showed that of the six variables
possible (radial and ulnar base angles, radial
and ulnar tangent angles and radial and
ulnar ridge counts) for the discriminant
function, the ulnar tangent angle was the
only significant variable to be entered and
retained (Wilks h = 0.92, P<0.0098, average squared canonical correlation = 0.08).
Q
f
B
Eif
DISCUSSION
There is inevitably some measurement error associated with the measurement of tangent angles and base angles. However, such
error is present during the measurement of
almost any continuous variable such as
weight, height, income, and so forth, due to
the im recision of the measurin instrument. Following the technique dgescribed
above, we believe that the amount of error
due to measurement is not significant
enough to obscure many important relationships among and between these new dermatoglyphic variables and ridge counts.
The positive correlation we observed for
most digits between the ulnarkadial tangent
angle and ulnariradial ridge counts and the
radiaYulnar tangent angle and the radial/
ulnar rid e counts suggests that for both
males an females, the hi her the tangent
angles, the higher will be t e ridge count of
the same side. Intuitively, this makes sense,
since the hi her the tangent angle, the farther away t e core will be located from the
TR line. Consequently, there will be more
ridges between the core and the triradius.
Thus, tangent angles throw light on ridge
counts in an indirect way.
The negative correlation we observed for
most digits between the ulnarkadial base
angle and the ulnariradial ridge counts, and
the radiavulnar base angle and the radiaY
fi
fl
a
168
C. SINGH AND K.B. MCKNIGHT
TABLE 5. Pearson's Coefficient o f Correlation (r) Expressing the Relationships for Each Digit
antorig Sir I)erm.atoglypkic Measures'
N
Parameter
56
UBA
KTA
UTA
RRC
URC
UBA
RTA
UTA
RRC
URC
29
ia
42
15
41
40
16
30
9
RBA
-UBA
RTA
UTA
RRC
-.
0.221
0.5611.
0.339*
0.055
---0.126
0.051
-0.036
0.328*
-0.039
-0.608t
0.341
-0.4031
0.303
0.142
- 0.246
-0.205
-0.150
-0.192
-0.026
-0.246
0.078
-0.510t
0.236
-0.50ot
-0.256
0.426*
-0.234
-0.5731.
0.6631
Tq?4
n 125
RTA
UTA
RRC
IJRC
UBA
RTA
UTA
RRC
URC
UBA
RTA
UTA
RRC
URC
RBA
UTA
RTA
URC
RRC
RBA
UTA
RTA
URC
RRC
RBA
UTA
H A
I iRC
RRC
-0.755t
0.252
-0.7'241
0.021
--(]..51ia:
-0.U77
0.133
-0.200
-U.179
0.6941.
0.304
RBA
UTA
RTA
URC
RRC
RBA
UTA
RTA
URC
RRC
0.073
-0.240
-0.004
-0.691t
-0.461*
0.049
-0.6161
-0.028
-0.662t
-0.126
0.171
-0.075
-0.092
0.4851
0.179
0.8921
-0.436
-0.143
0.206
-0.fi99*
0.609
-0.676*
-0.213
-0.165
0.402
-0.547
0.155
-0.087
-0.6301.
0.256
-0.fiost
0.069
-0.066
-0.330
0.510
-0.094
0.553*
0.205
-0,010
0.145
-0.013
0.236
-0.068
-0.4731
0.308
-0.4871
0.229
0.015
-0.6701
-0.013
0.179
-0.767t
0.040
-0.692t
-0.340
-0.380
0.849t
0.057
-0.133
0.7271
0.248
0.098
0.7021
0.5141-
0.346*
-0.488i
0.131
-0.159
-0.250
0.6051
0.009
-0.059
-0.623*
-0.426
-0.393
-0.305
0.170
-0.211
0.387*
-0.045
0.5281
0.043
-0.042
0.6261.
-0.184
0.146
-0.4731
0.127
-0.243
0.572*
0.6521
-0.009
0.213
0.5971-
0.187
-0.482t
0.5sst
-0.4811.
-0.240
0.7231
-0.058
0.391
-0.7001-
-0.122
ij.274
0.371*
0.006
-0.134
'The suhjtacts were North American Caucasian males.
*Correlations significant at PI-:0.05.
?Correlations significant a t P 5 0.01.
a pattern, the more the tilt of the triradius on
that side towards the core, thus producing a
smaller number of ridges. Here again we
learn something (in an indirect way) about
ridge counts from the magnitude of base
angles.
Holt (1961)reported a slightly smaller, but
nevertheless statistically significant, aver-
169
CONTINUOUS VARIABLES AND DERMATOGLYPHIC WHORLS
TABLE 6. Pearson's Coefficient o f Correlation (r) Expressing the Relationships for Each Digit
among Six Dermatoglvahic Measures'
Digit
N
Parameter
RBA
Ri
47
UBA
RTA
IJTA
RRC
URC
UBA
RTA
IJTA
RRC
URC
0.3831
-0.225
44
R4
R5
L1
37
12
46
31
17
31
10
UTA
RRC
URC
UBA
RTA
UTA
RRC
URC
UBA
RTA
UTA
RRC
URC
RBA
UTA
RTA
URC
RRC
RBA
IJTA
RTA
URC
RRC
RBA
UTA
RTA
URC
RRC
RBA
UTA
RTA
URC
RRC
RBA
UTA
RTA
URC
RRC
_
- RTA
IJTA
-0.184
.409t
-0.058
-0.097
0.087
-0.295"
0.046
-0.370*
-0.094
-0.134
0.091
-0.357"
-0.278
--0.5741.
0.364*
-0.4061.
0.194
0.357*
-0.5881.
0.215
-0.4957
-0.294
0.5701.
-0.4031.
-n.430
-0.762i
R3
~UBA
_ _
0.606"
-0.534
0.533
-0.027
-0.4677
0.201
--0.413"
0.184
0.236
-0.422
0.037
-0.7271.
0.300
-0.204
-0.214
0.147
-0.034
0.207
-0.227
-0.5191.
0.5121.
-0.382"
0.307
-0.641t
-0.451
-0.202
-0.6YZt
-0.379
RRC
0.300"
0.075
0.627-!
0.098
0.465
-0.7757
-0.374
-0.8131
0.461
-0.243
0.189
0.8241.
0.354
0.375*
-0.577i
0.059
-0.4961
-0.354"
0.4831
-0.253
0.093
0.6651.
0.245
0.130
-0.370
-0.269
-0.437
-0.071
0.669"
-0.392
--0.123
-0.260
0.087
0.036
-0.328*
0.5751.
-0.069
-0.360*
-0.089
0.109
-0.426"
0.306
-0.299
-0.5421.
0.5547
-0.315
-0.355
0.7191
- 0.490
0.287
0.309
-0.094
0.291*
-0.004
-0.121
0.082
0,338
0.1%
-0.168
0.478
0.054
~
0.359"
-0.4751
-0.069
-0.433*
-0.586t
0.026
-0.413*
-0.068
-0.6431.
-0.345
0.5841.
0.4837
-0.275
0.104
0.408
-0.380
-0.328
0.078
-0.169
0.450
-0.634"
0.586
-0.482
-0.479
0.655*
-0.341
-0.527
0.649*
0.5721.
-0.262
'The subjects were North American Caucasian females
*Correlations significant at P 5 0.06.
iCorrelations significant at P 5 0.01.
age ridge count for 825 British females when
compared with 825 British males. Similar
results were observed by Arrieta et al.
(1987),Dennis and Sunderland (1979), Janz
(1977), Karev (1986), and Micle and Ko-
byliansky (1986, 1988). Our data likewise
reinforce the notion that sex discrimination
with individual variables is hazardous. However, the sex differences reported here for R3
and L3 suggest that multivariate combina-
170
C. SINGH AND K.B. MCKNIGHT
tions of variables may effectively discriminate between sexes or other groups of individuals. Sample sizes may have to be much
larger than ours to do multivariate analyses,
especially if its necessary to make comparisons across digits.
Because our intent was not to try to describe average values for Caucasian tangent
angles or base angles, but rather to describe
how these new variables may be measured
and utilized, we did not perform discriminant anal ses for digits other than R4. However, we t ink it may be significant that for
the analysis of R4,uiie 0:' the ~ e variables
w
described here provided more information
about sexual dimorphism than ridge counts.
We expect that studies utilizing larger sample sizes may be able to analyze variables
across digits or combine raw data for base
and tangent angles into useful new variables, such as the differences between ulnar
and radial base angles or ulnar and radial
tangent angles.
There appears to be an untapped storehouse of information in dermal prints. We
have only begun to examine the angular
aspect of whorl patterns. We hope that there
may be other kinds of information that other
workers might uncover. We also believe that
the contribution of dermatoglyphics to future medical, sociological, and anthropological studies will be strengthened if eontinuous-variable measurements such as those
described here are included in the investigations.
K
ACKVnWXDGMENTS
We are extremely grateful to the anonymous reviewers and the editor-in-chief, Dr.
Matt Cartmill, for helping us to improve the
quality of the manuscript. The contribution
of the first author is dedicated to Dr. William
J. Ash, formerly professor of biology at St.
Lawrence University, who introduced this
author to the study of dermatoglyphics.
LITERATURE CITED
Arrieta MI, Ibarrondo MA, and Lostao CM (1987)Digital
Dermatoglyphics in the Basque Population: Univariate and Multivariate Comparison With Other Spanish
Populations, Am. J . Phys. Anthropol. 73339-98.
Bansel IJS (ed) (1980) Human Biology: Recent Advances. Vol. 2. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Dermatoglyphics, Department of Human
Biology, Punjabi University, Patiala, India. New
Delhi, India: Today and Tomorrow's Printers and Publishers.
Conover WJ (1971) Practical Nonparametric Statistics.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Cummins H, and Midlo C (1961) Finger Prints, Palms
and Soles: An Introduction t o Dermatoglyphics. New
York: Dover Publications, Inc.
Dennis RLH, and Sunderland E (1979) Dermatoglyphic
Variation in the Human Population of the North Pennine Dales, North England. Am. J . Phys. Anthropol.
50:309-324.
FBI (1979) The Science of Fingerprints. Washington,
D.C.: US.Government Printing Office.
Garruto RM, Plato CC, Myrianthopoulos, NC, Schanfield, MS, and Gajdusek DC (1983) Blood groups,
immunoglobulin alloiypes and dcrmitoglyphic feitures of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
and parkinsonism-dementia of Guam. J . Med. Genet.
14:289-298.
Goodson CS, and Meier FLJ (1966) Easter Islander
Palmer dermatoglyphics: Sexual dimorphism, bilateral asymmetry, and family polymorphism. Am. J .
Phys. Anthropol. 70:125-132.
Hall DG (1987) New remote interactive technology enables linkage of AFIS system. Police Chief Oct. 1987
50:61-63.
Holt SB (1961) Quantitative genetics of finger-print
patterns. Br. Med. Bull. 17:247-250.
Holt SB (1968) The Genetics of Dermal Ridges. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas.
Jantz RL (1977) Sex and race differences in fineer
ridge-count correlations. Am. J . Phys. AnthroFol.
46:171-176.
Karev G (1986) Digital dermatoglyphics of Bulgarians
from Northeast Bulgaria. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.
69:37-50.
Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, and Muller KE (1988) Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariate
Methods. Boston: PWS-KENTPublishing Co.
Micle S, and Kobyliansky E (1986) Dermatoglyphic sexual dimorphism in Israelis: Principal components and
discriminant analyses applied to quantitative traits.
Hum. Biol. 58:485498.
Mi& S. and Kobyliansky E (1988) Sex differences in the
intraindividual diversity of finger dermatoglyphics:
Pattern types and ridge counts: Hum. Bioi. 60:123-134.
Moses K (1987) The promise fulfilled: Making local AFIS
systems work. Police Chief Oct. 1987:50, 52-57.
Plato CC (1978)Dermatoglyphics and aging. J. Gerontol.
33:31-38.
Pollitzer WS, and Plato CC (1979) Anthropology and
dermatoglyphics. Birth Defects: Original Article Series, XV:211-223.
Ray AA (ed) (1982) SAS User's Guide: Statistics, 1982.
Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc.
Rostron J 11977)Multivariate studies on the genetics of
dermal ridges, Am. Hum. Genet. Lond. 41:199.
Schaumann B, and Alter M (1976) Dermatoglyphics in
Medical Disorders. New York: Springer-Verlag,
Schaumann B, Johnson SB, and Jantz RL (1982) Dermatoglyphics in Seizure Disorders. Progress in Dermatoglyphic Research. New York Alan R. Liss, Inc.
Singh C, and Ash W (1982) Structural relationships
between cores and triradii in digital dermatoglyphic
loop patterns of North American males and females.
CONTINUOUS VARIABLES AND DERMATOGLYPHIC WHORLS
Dermatoglyphics. Bull. Int. Dermatoglyph. Assoc.
10(1):36-42.
Singh C (1982) A study of structural relationships between cores and triradii in digital dermatoglyphic
whorls. Dermatoglyphics. Bull. Int. Dermatoglyph.
ASSOC.
10(2):16-24.
171
Sokal RR, and Rohlf FJ 119S1) Biometry. New York:
W. H. Freeman and Co.
WerteleckiW, and Plato CC (1983)Dermatoglyphics and
clinical genetics. Karyogam 9(2):22-26.
Wertelecki W, Plato CC, Fraumeni JF, and Niswander
J D (1973)Dermatoglyphics in leukemia. Pediatr. Res.
7:620-626.
Документ
Категория
Без категории
Просмотров
2
Размер файла
1 206 Кб
Теги
angular, measurements, patterns, variables, stud, statistics, dermatoglyphic, quantification, whorl, continuous
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа