Table VIb.
Percentage of cases in which the same class of pattern
occurs in various couplets of different digits.
(From 500 persons as above.)
| Couplets of Digits. | Of Same Hands. | Of Opposite Hands. | ||||||
| Arch. | Loops. | Whorls | Total. | Arch. | Loops. | Whorls | Total. | |
| Thumb and fore-finger | 2 | 35 | 16 | 53 | 2 | 33 | 15 | 50 |
| Thumb and middle finger | 1 | 48 | 9 | 58 | 1 | 47 | 8 | 56 |
| Thumb and ring-finger | 1 | 40 | 20 | 61 | 1 | 38 | 18 | 57 |
| Fore and middle finger | 5 | 48 | 12 | 65 | 5 | 46 | 11 | 62 |
| Fore and ring-finger | 2 | 35 | 17 | 54 | 2 | 35 | 17 | 54 |
| Middle and ring-finger | 2 | 50 | 13 | 65 | 2 | 50 | 12 | 64 |
| Means of the Totals | 59 | 57 | ||||||
A striking feature in this last table is the close similarity between corresponding entries relating to the same and to the opposite hands. There are eighteen sets to be compared; namely, six couplets of different names, in each of which the frequency of three different classes of patterns is discussed. The eighteen pairs of corresponding couplets are closely alike in every instance. It is worth while to rearrange the figures as below, for the greater convenience of observing their resemblances.
Table VII.
| Couplet. | Arches in | Loops in | Whorls in | |||
| Same hand. | Opposite hand. | Same hand. | Opposite hand. | Same hand. | Opposite hand. | |
| Thumb and fore-finger | 2 | 2 | 35 | 33 | 16 | 15 |
| Thumb and middle finger | 1 | 1 | 48 | 47 | 9 | 8 |
| Thumb and ring-finger | 1 | 1 | 40 | 38 | 20 | 18 |
| Fore and middle finger | 5 | 5 | 48 | 46 | 12 | 11 |
| Fore and ring-finger | 2 | 2 | 35 | 35 | 17 | 17 |
| Middle and ring-finger | 2 | 2 | 50 | 50 | 13 | 12 |
The agreement in the above entries is so curiously close as to have excited grave suspicion that it was due to some absurd blunder, by which the same figures were made inadvertently to do duty twice over, but subsequent checking disclosed no error. Though the unanimity of the results is wonderful, they are fairly arrived at, and leave no doubt that the relationship of any one particular digit, whether thumb, fore, middle, ring or little finger, to any other particular digit, is the same, whether the two digits are on the same or on opposite hands. It would be a most interesting subject of statistical inquiry to ascertain whether the distribution of malformations, or of the various forms of skin disease among the digits, corroborates this unexpected and remarkable result. I am sorry to have no means of undertaking it, being assured on good authority that no adequate collection of the necessary data has yet been published.
It might be hastily inferred from the statistical identity of the connection between, say, the right thumb and each of the two fore-fingers, that the patterns on the two fore-fingers ought always to be alike, whether arch, loop, or whorl. If X, it may be said, is identical both with Y and with Z, then Y and Z must be identical with one another. But the statement of the problem is wrong; X is not identical with Y and Z, but only bears an identical amount of statistical resemblance to each of them; so this reasoning is inadmissible. The character of the pattern on any digit is determined by causes of whose precise nature we are ignorant; but we may rest assured that they are numerous and variable, and that their variations are in large part independent of one another. We can in imagination divide them into groups, calling those that are common to the thumb and the fore-finger of either hand, and to those couplets exclusively, the A causes; those that are common to the two thumbs and to these exclusively, the B causes; and similarly those common to the two fore-fingers exclusively, the C causes.
Then the sum of the variable causes determining the class of pattern in the four several digits now in question are these:—