Approximate Measures of Relationship between the various Digits, on a Centesimal Scale.
(0° = no relationship; 100° = the utmost feasible likeness.)
| Couplets. | Loops. | Whorls. | Means. | |||
Digits of the same name. | ||||||
| Right | and | left | thumbs | 57 | 64 | 61 |
| " | " | fore-fingers | 37 | 59 | 48 | |
| " | " | middle fingers | 34 | 52 | 43 | |
| " | " | ring fingers | 61 | 70 | 65 | |
| Means | 47° | 61° | 54° | |||
Digits of different names on the same or on opposite hands. | ||||||
| Thumb and | fore-finger | 19 | 29 | 24 | ||
| " | middle finger | 19 | 34 | 27 | ||
| " | ring-finger | 33 | 44 | 39 | ||
| Fore and | middle finger | 52 | 68 | 60 | ||
| " | ring finger | 13 | 34 | 23 | ||
| Middle and | ring finger | 31 | 74 | 52 | ||
| Means | 28° | 47° | 37° | |||
The arches were sufficiently numerous in the fore-fingers (17 per cent) to fully justify the application of this method of calculation. The result was 43°, which agrees fairly with 48°, the mean of the loops and the whorls. In the middle finger the frequency of the arches was only half the above amount and barely suffices for calculation. It gave the result of 38°, which also agrees fairly with 43°, the mean of the loops and the whorls for that finger.
Some definite results may be gathered from this table notwithstanding the irregularity with which the figures run. Its upper and lower halves clearly belong to different statistical groups, the entries in the former being almost uniformly larger than those in the latter, in the proportion of 54° to 37°, say 3 to 2, which roughly represents in numerical terms the nearer relationship between digits of the same name, as compared to that between digits of different names. It seems also that of the 6 couplets of digits bearing different names, the relationship is closest between the middle finger and the two adjacent ones (60° and 52°, as against 24°, 27°, 39° and 23°). It is further seen in every pair of entries that whorls are related together more closely than loops. I note this, but cannot explain it. So far as my statistical inquiries into heredity have hitherto gone, all peculiarities were found to follow the same law of transmission, none being more surely inherited than others. If there were a tendency in any one out of many alternative characters to be more heritable than the rest, that character would become universally prevalent, in the absence of restraining influences. But it does not follow that there are no peculiar restraining influences here, nor that what is true for heredity, should be true, in all its details, as regards the relationships between the different digits.
CHAPTER IX
METHODS OF INDEXING
In this chapter the system of classification by Arches, Loops, and Whorls described in [Chapter V.] will be used for indexing two, three, six or ten digits, as the case may be.