[Figs. 341-344]
Figure 341, if classified as it appears, would be an accidental whorl. Figures 342 and 343 would be double loops, and illustration 344, a loop. It will be observed that these prints are rolled more fully than normal. If, however, the next time the prints are taken, they are not rolled quite so far, the patterns would require a very different classification, and would show no indication of any need for referencing to their true classification. The result would be a failure to establish an identification with the original prints. The only way in which such an error may be avoided is to classify such impressions as they would appear if not so fully rolled, and to conduct a reference search in the classification which would be given to the prints when rolled to the fullest extent. Applying this rule, illustration 341 is a tented arch, referenced to a whorl. Figures 342 and 343 are loops, referenced to whorls. Figure 344 is a plain arch, referenced to a loop.
No set rule can possibly be devised to enable a classifier to know with certainty where to draw the line when it is doubtful which classification should be given such a print. Individual judgment is the only standard. The test is: if the pattern, in the opinion of the classifier, is rolled to only a normal width, it should be classified as it appears. If it seems to be rolled to a width beyond the normal degree, it should be classified as if rolled only to the normal degree. Age, weight, size of fingers (as seen in the plain impressions), heaviness of the ridges, and experience of the technician in taking fingerprints are all factors in arriving at the correct conclusion. The necessity for exercising the utmost care in dealing with this type of pattern cannot be too highly emphasized.
The patterns in figures 345 and 346 also have a second loop near the edge of the impression. In these two patterns, however, the second loop is very near the delta and consequently will almost invariably appear even though not rolled to the fullest extent. The foregoing rule is not applied to this type of impression. Both are classified as a whorl and referenced to a loop to take care of the rare contingency of nonappearance.
[Figs. 345-346]