FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79  
80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   >>   >|  
cannot be determined with _reasonable accuracy_, but the ridges allow reasonably accurate subclassifications by ridge tracings or counting, the impression should be given the primary value of the pattern of the corresponding finger and the subclassification value as indicated by the ridges of partially scarred impressions. - When an impression is partially scarred and the general type of pattern can be determined with reasonable accuracy, but the ridges cannot be traced or counted so as to fall within the proper subsecondary classification, the impression should be given the ridge count or tracing value of the corresponding finger of the other hand, if the corresponding finger is of the same general type. If the corresponding finger is not of the same general type, the scarred impression should be given the probable value and referenced to all other possibilities. - When an impression is so scarred that neither the general type of pattern nor the ridge tracing or count can be determined with reasonable accuracy, and it so happens that the corresponding finger of the other hand is similarly scarred, both patterns are given the arbitrary value of whorls with meeting tracings. In figure 355, the pattern is entirely obliterated. It could have been a small whorl, a small ulnar or radial loop, an arch, or a tented arch. If the opposite finger were an arch or tented arch or whorl, this impression would be classified as arch, tented arch, or whorl (with the same tracing). If the opposite finger were a small-count loop, this would be classified as a loop of the same count. If the opposite finger were a large-count loop, this impression would be given the count of the opposite finger even though it could never have had that count. If the opposite finger were scarred in the same fashion or were amputated or missing, both impressions would be classified as whorls with meeting tracings. In figure 356, the general type of the pattern could have been loop (ulnar if in the right hand) or whorl. If the opposite finger were a whorl this would be classified as a whorl, and with the same tracing. If a radial loop were opposite, this would be classified as an ulnar loop (if in the right hand). The ridge count can be obtained with a fair degree of accuracy. If an arch or tented arch were opposite, this impression would be
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79  
80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
finger
 

opposite

 

impression

 

scarred

 

general

 

classified

 

pattern

 

tracing


tented

 

accuracy

 
determined
 

tracings

 
reasonable
 

ridges

 

meeting

 

figure


whorls

 

partially

 

radial

 

impressions

 

subclassifications

 
accurate
 

obtained

 

degree


missing
 

amputated

 

fashion

 
counting
 

probable

 

referenced

 

traced

 

counted


proper

 

subsecondary

 

classification

 

possibilities

 

arbitrary

 

obliterated

 

subclassification

 
patterns

similarly

 
primary