[Fig. 355]
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 classified as a loop because it looks as if it had been a loop.
[Fig. 356]
In figure 357, the ridge count cannot be determined accurately but it would be classified as a loop, no matter what the opposite finger might be. If the opposite finger were a loop with a count of from 6 to 17, this impression would be given that count. If the count of the opposite loop were less or more than 6 to 17, the count for this finger would be given I or O in the subsecondary classification depending upon whether the opposite finger was I or O, but would not be given less than 6 nor more than 17 counts as its possibility is limited to those counts.
[Fig. 357]
A pattern with a scar similar to either scar in figures 358 and 359 would always be given a loop as it could be seen readily that there was no possibility of its having been any other type of pattern.
