Variation among European populations in summary finger ridge-count variables

Abstract

The magnitude of ridge-count variation and its spatial and linguistic patterning was examined using 82 male and 75 female samples from Europe. Variables were summary measures: sum of radial counts (radial) sum of ulnar counts (ulnar) and sum of larger counts (total ridge-count or TRC). Dermatoglyphic parameters were compared with those derived from classic nuclear gene markers. Fst values computed from ridge-counts range between 0.016 and 0.025, relatively high when compared to classical genetic polymorphism. Ridge-count distances show significant correlation with geographic distances but not with linguistic distances. Ridge-count distances show even higher correlation with blood marker distances, suggesting that, like blood polymorphisms, ridge-counts were strongly influenced by demic expansion of Neolithic farmers. The most differentiated populations in Europe are those of the North Atlantic and North Sea region, especially the Orcadians and Faroe Islanders. Certain Finnic speakers such as Lapps and Udmurts are also strongly differentiated. These same populations are frequent outliers in genetic analyses.

Sex identification from fingertip features in Egyptian population

“…This age was chosen to ensure fixed ridge width as ridge width varies according to age. 10 They were Egyptian students and officials in Faculty of Medicine, Minia University. Subjects with any evidence of disease or injury of the fingertips that were likely to alter the fingerprint pattern (leprosy, scars or laceration.etc.)…”

Variability of fingerprint ridge density in a sample of Spanish Caucasians and its application to sex determination

“…For this reason, although gender differences in epidermal ridge width are generally recognized by many fingerprint experts, they have not been adequately examined in human populations, since there are so few studies that have assessed them [13,14,21,25,[28][29][30][31][32]. These differences have recently been studied with regard to those aspects that permit their application to gender identification in the field of forensic science [33,34].…”

Vocabulary harmonisation for biometrics: the development of ISO/IEC 2382 Part 37

“…The dictionary definition [30] is adopted for these uses of ‘identity’.]. ‘Biometrics’ in our sense is about automated recognition based on inherent bodily characteristics, which are generally both biological and behavioural, and limited to human subjects, as opposed to animals [42] or vegetables [43], and applied to individuals, as opposed to the characterisation of populations [44]. As a result, WG1 settled on the following definition of ‘biometric recognition’ or ‘biometrics’ (both considered ‘preferred terms’), with additional notes to clarify our wording [Throughout this paper, the numbering system of terms is that in [20], where the first number (37) is common to all terms in ISO/IEC 2382‐37, the second number is that of the subfield and the third number is the number of the term within the subfield.…”