+--------------------------------------------------------------------+--of Daughters.Alike.TotalTotalAlike.daughters.children.---------------------------------------------------------------1, 1223342, 48...2312, 401231421121401122.........1140...12140, 1...26340, 42123242, 42, 48, 42, 4245951, 40...23142, 42, 42, 424454.........1...42, 42, 42334442, 42, 42, 42, 42, 42, 42334433, 42124240, 42, 1134242, 42 (twins)222232, 40...25116, 14, 42, 4214619, 35, 48, 32, 14156140...12...40, 42125440, 42122142, 40, 42235442, 42, 42335316, 38...26...-----------------------------------Daughters3765Sons2244--------------------Total Children5910910959+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
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 a.n.a.lysis 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 quant.i.tative 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.CorrectedTotals.---------------------------------------------------------------Father and son1735288080}149" " daughter295230(111)69}Mother and son1850269494}186" " daughter387535(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 0621, 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 CLa.s.sES
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 a.s.sistance; 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 a.s.sert, 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 x.x.x.
_Frequency of Arches in the Right Fore-Finger._
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+No. ofRace.No. ofPer Cents.Persons.Arches.-----------------------------------------------------------------250English34136250Welsh261081332Hebrew10579250Negro27113_Hebrews in detail_--500Boys, Bell Lane School3570400Girls, Bell Lane School3485220Boys, Tavistock St. & Hanway St.1882212Girls, Hanway Street School1885+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
The two contrasted values here are the English and the Hebrew. The 1332 cases of the latter give a percentage result of 79, 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 136 is not too great. It follows, that the percentage of arches in the English and in the Hebrew differs in the ratio of 136 to 79, 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 cla.s.ses 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 cla.s.ses 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 a.s.sistance 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 a.n.a.logy 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 mult.i.tude 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 s.p.a.ce. 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.
[Ill.u.s.tration]
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 p.r.i.c.ked in each print with a fine needle; the print was then turned face downwards and careful measurements made between the p.r.i.c.k 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 pa.s.sed 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 x.x.xI.
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 a.n.a.logy a.s.sures 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 x.x.xI.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+No. of casesNo. of casesNo. of casesreducedreducedreducedNo. ofto per cents.KLto per cents.ANto per cents.ridges----------------------------------------------in AH.Right.Left.NBRight.Left.AHRight.Left.---------------------------------------171166149140176163cases.casescases.casescasescases-----------------------------------------------------------11...03-043201-022122105-0681103-047332307-0891405-0611342509-10211807-089953511-12162309-102215641813-1424711-121513781415-1681013-141212881617-183615-1611149111019-205617-18810109821-221119-2015111410above2221-22......12118.........23-241613102.........25-26...4147............27-28...3156............29-30...1above2............above11---------------------------------------100100100100100100+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
TABLE x.x.xII.
+---------------------------------------------+Ordinates to the six schemes ofDistribution, being the ordinatesdrawn from the base of eachscheme at selected centesimaldivisions of the base.Abscissae---------------------------------reckonedinNo. of ridges in AH.centesimalparts of---------------------------------theRight.Left.interval--------------------------------betweenOCalculatedOCalculatedthe limitsbfrombfromof thesM=104sM=78scheme.ep.e.=23ep.e.=190 torr100.vveedd-----------------------------------------53848383210556048422073755854257981615930858664634095957174501051047878601131138482701211229393751251279997801301331101029014314811511495150160122122+---------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+KLANValues of --Values of --NBAH-------------------------------------------------------------------Right.Left.Right.Left.-----------------------------------------------------------------OCalculatedOCalculatedOCalculatedOCalculatedbfrombfrombfrombfromsM=115sM=110sM=108sM=136ep.e.=025ep.e.=031ep.e.=030ep.e.=036rrrrvvvveeeedddd-------------------------------------------------------------054054049035036032058048064067059051050048074068085084078071066067096091091090083079079075100l00099095089086087082104108105105100098098093121122115115110110104105137136129125118122118117148150133135132134131128166164141140146141139135173172145146153149148143190281177163173169169162223204200176180185181178248224+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
TABLE x.x.xIII.
+-------------------------------------------------------Ordinates to the six curves ofdistribution, drawn from the axis ofeach curve at selected centesimaldivisions of it.They are here reduced to a commonmeasure, by dividing the observeddeviations in each series by theAbscissaeprobable error appropriate to thereckoned inseries, and multiplying by 100. For thecentesimalvalues of M, whence the deviations areparts of themeasured, and for those of theintervalcorresponding probable error, see thebetween theheadings to the columns in Table II.limits of-----------------------------------------the curve.No. ofKLAN0 to 100.RidgesValues of --Values of --in AH.NBAH---------------------------------------Right.Left.Right.Left.Right.Left.-------------------------------------------------5-291-211-244-196-230-21710-213-158-204-164-183-17220-135-105-120-103-130-111(P) 25-109- 84- 92- 87- 87-10030- 83- 74- 64- 68- 60- 8940- 44- 37- 44- 31- 23- 42(M) 50+ 40000060+ 39+ 31+ 56+ 23+ 43+ 3370+ 74+ 79+ 72+ 68+ 87+ 83(Q) 75+ 91+116+104+116+113+10380+113+168+120+138+143+15090+170+200+248+203+213+24295+200+231+340+225+253+311+-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------+Observed.Calculated.-----------------------------------Mean of thecorrespondingordinates inthe six curvesafter reductionto the commonOrdinates toscale ofthe normal curvep.e. = 100.of distribution,965 observationsprobable errorin all.= 100.------------------------------------231-244-182-190-117-125- 93-100- 73- 78- 37- 38+ 10+ 38+ 38+ 77+ 78+107+100+139+125+213+190+260+244-------------------------------------+