Chapter VIII. shows a close correlation to exist between the patterns on
the several fingers of the same person. Hence we are justified in assuming that the patterns are partly dependent on constitutional causes, in which case it would indeed be strange if the general law of heredity failed in this particular case.
After examining many prints, the frequency with which some peculiar pattern was found to characterise members of the same family convinced me of the reality of an hereditary tendency. The question was how to submit the belief to numerical tests; particular kinships had to be selected, and methods of discussion devised.
It must here be borne in mind that "Heredity" implies more than its original meaning of a relationship between parent and child. It includes that which connects children of the same parents, and which I have shown (_Natural Inheritance_) to be just twice as close in the case of stature as that which connects a child and either of its two parents. Moreover, the closeness of the fraternal and the filial relations are to a great extent interdependent, for in any population whose faculties remain _statistically_ the same during successive generations, it has been shown that a simple algebraical equation must exist, that connects together the three elements of Filial Relation, Fraternal Relation, and Regression, by which a knowledge of any two of them determines the value of the third. So far as Regression may be treated as being constant in value, the Filial and the Fraternal relations become reciprocally connected. It is not possible briefly to give an adequate explanation of all this now, or to show how strictly observations were found to confirm the theory; this has been fully done in _Natural Inheritance_, and the conclusions will here be assumed.
The fraternal relation, besides disclosing more readily than other kinships the existence or non-existence of heredity, is at the same time more convenient, because it is easier to obtain examples of brothers and sisters alone, than with the addition of their father and mother. The resemblance between those who are twins is also an especially significant branch of the fraternal relationship. The word "fraternities" will be used to include the children of both sexes who are born of the same parents; it being impossible to name the familiar kinship in question either in English, French, Latin, or Greek, without circumlocution or using an incorrect word, thus affording a striking example of the way in which abstract thought outruns language, and its expression is hampered by the inadequacy of language. In this dilemma I prefer to fall upon the second horn, that of incorrectness of phraseology, subject to the foregoing explanation and definition.
The first preliminary experiments were made with the help of the Arch-Loop-Whorl classification, on the same principle as that already described and utilised in Chapter VIII., with the following addition. Each of the two members of any couplet of fingers has a distinctive name--for instance, the couplet may consist of a finger and a thumb: or again, if it should consist of two fore-fingers, one will be a right fore-finger and the other a left one, but the two brothers in a couplet of brothers rank equally as such. The plan was therefore adopted of "ear-marking" the prints of the first of the two brothers that happened to come to hand, with an A, and that of the second brother with a B; and so reducing the questions to the shape:--How often does the pattern on the finger of a B brother agree with that on the corresponding finger of an A brother? How often would it occur between two persons who had no family likeness? How often would it correspond if the kinship between A and B were as close as it is possible to conceive? Or transposing the questions, and using the same words as in Chapter VIII., what is the relative frequency of (1) Random occurrences, (2) Observed occurrences, (3) Utmost possibilities? It was shown in that chapter how to find the value of (2) upon a centesimal scale in which "Randoms" ranked as 0 deg. and "Utmost possibilities" as 100 deg.
The method there used of calculating the frequency of the "Random" events will be accepted without hesitation by all who are acquainted with the theory and the practice of problems of probability. Still, it is as well to occasionally submit calculation to test. The following example was sent to me for that purpose by a friend who, not being mathematically minded, had demurred somewhat to the possibility of utilising the calculated "Randoms."
The prints of 101 (by mistake for 100) couplets of prints of the right fore-fingers of school children were taken by him from a large collection, the two members, A and B, being picked out at random and formed into a couplet. It was found that among the A children there were 22 arches, 50 loops, and 29 whorls, and among the B children 25, 34, and 42 respectively, as is shown by the _italic_ numerals in the last column, and again in the bottom row of Table XX. The remainder of the table shows the number of times in which an arch, loop, or whorl of an A child was associated with an arch, loop, or whorl of a B child.
TABLE XX.
_Observed Random Couplets._
+----------------------------------------------------+ | | A children. | Totals in | | B children. |------------------------| B children. | | | Arches.| Loops.|Whorls.| | |-------------|--------|-------|-------|-------------| | Arches | 5 | 12 | 8 | _25_ | | Loops | 8 | 18 | 8 | _34_ | | Whorls | 9 | 20 | 13 | _42_ | |-------------|--------|-------|-------|-------------| |Totals in A} | | | | | | children } | _22_ | _50_ | _29_ | 101 | +----------------------------------------------------+
TABLE XXI.
_Calculated Random Couplets._
+----------------------------------------------------+ | | A children. | Totals in | | B children. |------------------------| B children. | | | Arches.| Loops.|Whorls.| | |-------------|--------|-------|-------|-------------| | Arches | 5.00 | 12.50 | 7.25 | _25_ | | Loops | 6.80 | 17.00 | 9.86 | _34_ | | Whorls | 8.40 | 21.00 | 12.18 | _42_ | |-------------|--------|-------|-------|-------------| |Totals in A} | | | | | | children } | _22_ | _50_ | _29_ | 101 | +----------------------------------------------------+
The question, then, was how far calculations from the above data would correspond with the contents of Table XX. The answer is that it does so admirably. Multiply each of the italicised A totals into each of the italicised B totals, and after dividing each result by 101, enter it in the square at which the column that has the A total at its base, is intersected by the row that has the B total at its side. We thus obtain Table XXI.
We will now discuss in order the following relationships: the Fraternal, first in the ordinary sense, and then in the special case of twins of the same set; Filial, in the special case in which both parents have the same particular pattern on the same finger; lastly, the relative influence of the father and mother in transmitting their patterns.
_Fraternal relationship._--In 105 fraternities the _observed_ figures were as in Table XXII.:--
TABLE XXII.
_Observed Fraternal Couplets._
+----------------------------------------------------+ | | A children. | Totals in | | B children. |----------------------| B children. | | |Arches.|Loops.|Whorls.| | |--------------|-------|------|-------|--------------| |Arches | 5 | 12 | 2 | _19_ | | |-------+------| | | |Loops | 4 | 42 | 15 | _61_ | | |-------|------|-------| | |Whorls | 1 | 14 | 10 | _25_ | |--------------|-------+------+-------|--------------| |Totals in A } | | | | | | children } | _10_ | _68_ | _27_ | 105 | +----------------------------------------------------+
The squares that run diagonally from the top at the left, to the bottom at the right, contain the double events, and it is with these that we are now concerned. Are the entries in those squares larger or not than the randoms, calculated as above, viz. the values of 10 x 19, 68 x 61, 27 x 25, all divided by 105? The calculated Randoms are shown in the first line of Table XXIII., the third line gives the greatest feasible number of correspondences which would occur if the kinship were as close as possible, subject to the reservation explained in p. 127. As there shown, the _lower_ of the A and B values is taken in each case, for Arches, Loops, and Whorls respectively.
TABLE XXIII.
+----------------------------------------------+ | | A and B both being | | |----------------------------| | | Arches. | Loops. | Whorls. | |-----------------|---------|--------|---------| | Random | 1.7 | 37.6 | 6.2 | | Observed | 5.0 | 42.0 | 10.0 | | Utmost feasible | 10.0 | 61.0 | 25.0 | +----------------------------------------------+
In every instance, the Observed values are seen to exceed the Random.
Many other cases of this description were calculated, all yielding the same general result, but these results are not as satisfactory as can be wished, owing to their dilution by inappropriate cases, the A. L. W. system being somewhat artificial.
With the view of obtaining a more satisfactory result the patterns were subdivided under fifty-three heads, and an experiment was made with the fore, middle, and ring-fingers of 150 fraternal couplets (300 individuals and 900 digits) by Mr. F. Howard Collins, who kindly undertook the considerable labour of indexing and tabulating them.
The provisional list of standard patterns published in the _Phil. Trans._ was not appropriate for this purpose. It related chiefly to thumbs, and consequently omitted the tented arch; it also referred to the left hand, but in the following tabulations the right hand has been used; and its numbering is rather inconvenient. The present set of fifty-three patterns has faults, and cannot be considered in any way as final, but it was suitable for our purposes and may be convenient to others; as Mr. Collins worked wholly by it, it may be distinguished as the "C. set." The banded patterns, 24-31, are very rarely found on the fingers, but being common on the thumb, were retained, on the chance of our requiring the introduction of thumb patterns into the tabulations. The numerals refer to the patterns as seen in impressions of the _right hand_ only. [They would be equally true for the patterns as seen on the _fingers themselves_ of the left hand.] For impressions of the left hand the numerals up to 7 inclusive would be the same, but those of all the rest would be changed. These are arranged in couplets, the one member of the couplet being a reversed picture of the other, those in each couplet being distinguished by severally bearing an odd and an even number. Therefore, in impressions of the left hand, 8 would have to be changed into 9, and 9 into 8; 10 into 11, and 11 into 10; and so on, up to the end, viz. 52 and 53. The numeral 54 was used to express nondescript patterns.
The finger prints had to be gone through repeatedly, some weeks elapsing between the inspections, and under conditions which excluded the possibility of unconscious bias; a subject of frequent communication between Mr. Collins and myself. Living at a distance apart, it was not easy at the time they were made, to bring our respective interpretations of transitional and of some of the other patterns, especially the invaded loops, into strict accordance, so I prefer to keep his work, in which I have perfect confidence, independent from my own. Whenever a fraternity consisted of more than two members, they were divided, according to a prearranged system, into as many couplets as there were individuals. Thus, while a fraternity of three individuals furnished all of its three possible varieties of couplets, (1, 2), (1, 3), (2, 3), one of four individuals was not allowed to furnish more than four of its possible couplets, the two italicised ones being omitted, (1, 2), (1, 3), (_1, 4_), (_2, 3_), (2, 4), (3, 4), and so on. Without this precaution, a single very large family might exercise a disproportionate and even overwhelming statistical influence.
It would be essential to exact working, that the mutual relations of the patterns should be taken into account; for example, suppose an arch to be found on the fore-finger of one brother and a nascent loop on that of the other; then, as these patterns are evidently related, their concurrence ought to be interpreted as showing some degree of resemblance. However, it was impossible to take cognizance of partial resemblances, the mutual relations of the patterns not having, as yet, been determined with adequate accuracy.
The completed tabulations occupied three large sheets, one for each of the fingers, ruled crossways into fifty-three vertical columns for the A brothers, and fifty-three horizontal rows for the B brothers. Thus, if the register number of the pattern of A was 10, and that of B was 42, then a mark would be put in the square limited by the ninth and tenth horizontal lines, and by the forty-first and forty-second vertical ones. The marks were scattered sparsely over the sheet. Those in each square were then added up, and finally the numbers in each of the rows and in each of the columns were severally totalled.
If the number of couplets had been much greater than they are, a test of the accuracy with which their patterns had been classed under the appropriate heads, would be found in the frequency with which the same patterns were registered in the corresponding finger of the A and B brothers. The A and B groups are strictly homogeneous, consequently the frequency of their patterns in corresponding fingers ought to be alike. The success with which this test has been fulfilled in the present case, is passably good, its exact degree being shown in the following paragraphs, where the numbers of entries under each head are arranged in as orderly a manner as the case admits, the smaller of the two numbers being the one that stands first, whether it was an A or a B. All instances in which there were at least five entries under either A or B, are included; the rest being disregarded. The result is as follows:--
I. Thirteen cases of more or less congruity between the number of A and B entries under the same head:--5-7; 5-7; 5-8; 6-8; 7-10; 8-9; 8-12; 9-12; 10-10; 11-13; 12-16; 14-18; 72-73. (This last refers to loops on the middle finger.)
II. Six cases of more or less incongruity:--1-7; 6-12; 14-20; 14-22; 22-35; 39-50.
The three Tables, XXIV., XXV., XXVI., contain the results of the tabulations and the deductions from them.
TABLE XXIV.
_Comparison of three Fingers of the Right Hand in 150 Fraternal Couplets._
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | | Fore-fingers. || Middle fingers. || Ring-fingers. | | |--------------------||--------------------||--------------------| | Index | Down |Along|Double|| Down |Along|Double|| Down |Along|Double| | No. of|columns|lines|events||columns|lines|events||columns|lines|events| |Pattern|-------|-----|------||-------|-----|------||-------|-----|------| | | | | A || | | A || | | A | | | A | B | and || A | B | and || A | B | and | | | | | B || | | B || | | B | |-------|-------|-----|------||-------|-----|------||-------|-----|------| | 1 | 15 | 12 | 4 || 8 | 5 | 2 || 7 | 5 | 1 | | 2 | 3 | 2 | || 3 | 2 | || | | | | 6 | 2 | 2 | 1 || | | || 2 | 4 | | | 7 | | 2 | || 2 | 1 | || 7 | 5 | 1 | | 8 | | | || | | || | 1 | | | 9 | 1 | 7 | || 4 | 1 | 1 || 7 | 1 | | | 12 | 1 | | || 2 | | || | | | | 13 | | | || 2 | 1 | || | | | | 14 | 4 | 3 | || 4 | 4 | 1 || 20 | 14 | 1 | | 15 | 16 | 12 | 3 || 4 | 2 | || 3 | 4 | | | 16 | 2 | 3 | || 2 | 3 | || 10 | 7 | 2 | | 17 | 4 | 3 | || 3 | | || | | | | 18 | | | || 4 | 1 | || 18 | 14 | 6 | | 19 | 3 | 3 | || 2 | 5 | || 1 | | | | 20 | | | || | | || 1 | 3 | 1 | | 21 | | 1 | || | | || | | | | 22 | | 4 | || 1 | 8 | || 1 | 2 | | | 23 | 1 | | || 1 | | || 6 | | | | 27 | 1 | | || | | || | | | | 32 | 1 | | || 1 | 3 | || 4 | 4 | | | 33 | 3 | 1 | 1 || 1 | | || 3 | 3 | 1 | | 34 | 3 | 2 | || 4 | 1 | || | | | | 35 | 2 | 3 | || | 5 | || 9 | 12 | 2 | | 38 | 2 | 1 | || | | || | | | | 39 | 4 | | || 3 | 1 | || | | | | 40 | 13 | 11 | 1 || 14 | 22 | 6 || 9 | 8 | | | 41 | 12 | 8 | || 1 | 3 | || | 1 | | | 42 | 22 | 35 | 5 || 73 | 72 | 35 || 39 | 50 | 16 | | 43 | 10 | 10 | 3 || 4 | 1 | || | 3 | | | 44 | 2 | 1 | || | 2 | || | 2 | | | 45 | 1 | 1 | || | | || | | | | 46 | 8 | 6 | 1 || 3 | 1 | || | 1 | | | 47 | 3 | 4 | || | | || | | | | 48 | 6 | 12 | 1 || 4 | 6 | || 2 | 3 | | | 49 | 1 | 1 | || | | || | | | | 52 | | | || | | || 1 | | | | 53 | | | || | | || | 1 | | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
TABLE XXV.
_Comparison between Random and Observed Events._
+-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Fore. || Middle. || Ring. | |-------------------||-------------------||-------------------| | Random.| Observed.|| Random.| Observed.|| Random.| Observed.| |--------|----------||--------|----------||--------|----------| | 1.20 | 4 || 0.26 | 2 || 0.23 | 1 | | 0.08 | ... || 0.11 | 1 || 0.05 | ... | | 1.28 | 3 || 0.05 | ... || 0.23 | ... | | 0.08 | ... || 0.07 | ... || 1.87 | 1 | | 0.06 | ... || 0.05 | ... || 0.08 | ... | | 0.95 | 1 || 2.05 | 6 || 0.46 | 2 | | 0.64 | ... || 34.08 | 35 || 1.68 | 6 | | 5.18 | 5 || 0.16 | ... || 0.11 | ... | | 0.67 | 3 || | || 0.06 | 1 | | 0.32 | 1 || | || 0.72 | 2 | | 0.08 | ... || | || 0.48 | ... | | 0.48 | 1 || | || 13.00 | 16 | |--------| || | || | | | All | || | || | | | others.| || | || | | | 0.29 | 2 || 0.28 | 1 || 0.12 | 1 | |--------|----------||--------|----------||--------|----------| | 11.31 | 20 || 37.11 | 45 || 19.09 | 30 | +-------------------------------------------------------------+
TABLE XXVI.
_Centesimal Scale (to nearest whole numbers)._
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ |150 fraternal|Random.|Observed.| Utmost |Reduced | Reduced to | | couplets. | | |possibilities.|to lower | upper | | | | | |limit=0. | limit=100. | |-------------|-------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------| | | | | | | Centesimal | | | | | | | scale. | | | | | | |--------------| |Fore-finger | 11.31 | 20 | 115 |0 9 104 |0 deg. 9 deg. 100 deg.| |Middle | 37.11 | 45 | 117 |0 10 80 |0 deg. 10 deg. 100 deg.| |Ring | 19.09 | 31 | 118 |0 12 99 |0 deg. 12 deg. 100 deg.| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| | Mean |0 deg. 10 deg. 100 deg.| |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| |50 additional| | | | | | | couplets. | | | | | | |-------------| | | | | | |Middle finger| | | | | | |only | 8.2 | 11 | 22 |0 3 14 |0 deg. 21 deg. 100 deg.| |-------------|-------|---------|--------------|---------|--------------| | Loops only, | | | | | | |and on middle| | | | | | | finger only.| | | | | | |-------------| | | | | | |150 couplets | 34.0 | 35 | 72 |0 1 72 |0 deg. 1-1/4 deg. 100 deg.| |50 couplets | 6.4 | 7 | 14 |0 0.6 8 |0 deg. 8 deg. 100 deg.| +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Table XXIV. contains all the Observed events, and is to be read thus, beginning at the first entry. Pattern No. 1 occurs on the right fore-finger fifteen times among the A brothers, and twelve times among the B brothers; while in four of these cases both brothers have that same pattern.
Table XXV. compares the Random events with the Observed ones. Every case in which the calculated expectation is equal to or exceeds 0.05, is inserted in detail; the remaining group of petty cases are summed together and their totals entered in the bottom line. For fear of misapprehension or forgetfulness, one other example of the way in which the Randoms are calculated will be given here, taking for the purpose the first entry in Table XXIV. Thus, the number of all the different combinations of the 150 A with the 150 B individuals in the 150 couplets, is 150 x 150. Out of these, the number of double events in which pattern No. 1 would appear in the same combination, is 15 x 12 = 180. Therefore in 150 trials, the double event of pattern No. 1 would appear upon the average, on 180 divided by 150, or on 1.20 occasions. As a matter of fact, it appeared four times. These figures will be found in the first line of Table XXV.; the rest of its contents have been calculated in the same way.
Leaving aside the Randoms that exceed 0 but are less than 1, there are nineteen cases in which the Random may be compared with the Observed values; in all but two of these the Observed are the highest, and in these two the Random exceed the Observed by only trifling amounts, namely, 5.18 Random against 5.00 Observed; 1.87 Random against 1.00 Observed. It is impossible, therefore, to doubt from the steady way in which the Observed values overtop the Randoms, that there is a greater average likeness in the finger marks of two brothers, than in those of two persons taken at hazard.
Table XXVI. gives the results of applying the centesimal scale to the measurement of the average closeness of fraternal resemblance, in respect to finger prints, according to the method and under the reservations already explained in page 125. The average value thus assigned to it is a little more than 10 deg. The values obtained from the three fingers severally, from which that average was derived, are 9 deg., 10 deg., and 12 deg.; they agree together better than might have been expected. The value obtained from a set of fifty additional couplets of the middle fingers only, of fraternals, is wider, being 21 deg. Its inclusion with the rest raises the average of all to between 10 and 11.
In the pre-eminently frequent event of loops with an outward slope on the middle finger, it is remarkable that the Random cases are nearly equal to the Observed ones; they are 34.08 to 35.00. It was to obtain some assurance that this equality was not due to statistical accident, that the additional set of fifty couplets were tabulated. They tell, however, the same tale, viz. 6.4 Randoms to 7.0 Observed. The loops on the fore-fingers confirm this, showing 5.18 Randoms to 5.00 Observed; those on the ring-finger have the same peculiarity, though in a slighter degree, 13 to 16: the average of other patterns shows a much greater difference than that. I am unable to account for this curious behaviour of the loops, which can hardly be due to statistical accident, in the face of so much concurrent evidence.
_Twins._--The signs of heredity between brothers and sisters ought to be especially apparent between twins of the same sex, who are physiologically related in a peculiar degree and are sometimes extraordinarily alike. More rarely, they are remarkably dissimilar. The instances of only a moderate family resemblance between twins of the same sex are much less frequent than between ordinary brothers and sisters, or between twins of opposite sex. All this has been discussed in my _Human Faculty_. In order to test the truth of the expectation, I procured prints of the fore, middle, and ring-fingers of seventeen sets of twins, and compared them, with the results shown in Table XXVII.
TABLE XXVII.
17 SETS OF TWINS (A and B).
_Comparison between the patterns on the Fore, Middle, and Ring-fingers respectively of the Right hand._
Agreement (=), 19 cases; partial (..), 13 cases; disagreement (x), 19 cases.
+----------------------------------------------------------------+ | | A B | A B | A B | A B | A B | |----------------------------------------------------------------| |Fore | 42 = 42 | 21 = 21 | 40 = 40 | 6 = 6 | 1 = 1 | |Middle| 42 = 42 | 8 = 8 | 32 x 42 | 15 .. 32 | 42 = 42 | |Ring | 42 = 42 | 8 = 8 | 42 = 42 | 33 = 33 | 40 x 19 | | | | | | | | |Fore | 42 = 42 | 43 x 15 | 1 = 1 | 15 x 34 | 2 .. 42 | |Middle| 42 = 42 | 42 .. 40 | 1 x 40 | 42 = 42 | 42 = 42 | |Ring | 42 .. 46 | 35 = 35 | 40 .. 42 | 14 x 32 | 42 x 14 | | | | | | | | |Fore | 49 .. 14 | 15 x 49 | 15 .. 16 | 1 x 42 | 1 x 15 | |Middle| 42 = 42 | 23 x 14 | 19 x 42 | 42 .. 48 | 32 x 22 | |Ring | 9 .. 32 | 14 .. 16 | 6 .. 18 | 42 x 8 | 18 x 23 | | | | | | | | |Fore | 48 x 33 |(loop) x 9 | | | | |Middle| 42 x 22 | 48 x 22 | | | | |Ring | 14 .. 6 | 9 .. 35 | | | | +----------------------------------------------------------------+
The result is that out of the seventeen sets (=51 couplets), two sets agree in all their three couplets of fingers; four sets agree in two; five sets agree in one of the couplets. There are instances of partial agreement in five others, and a disagreement throughout in only one of the seventeen sets. In another collection of seventeen sets, made to compare with this, six agreed in two of their three couplets, and five agreed in one of them. There cannot then be the slightest doubt as to the strong tendency to resemblance in the finger patterns in twins.
This remark must by no means be forced into the sense of meaning that the similarity is so great, that the finger print of one twin might occasionally be mistaken for that of the other. When patterns fall into the same class, their general forms may be conspicuously different (see p. 74), while their smaller details, namely, the number of ridges and the minutiae, are practically independent of the pattern.
It may be mentioned that I have an inquiry in view, which has not yet been fairly begun, owing to the want of sufficient data, namely to determine the minutest biological unit that may be hereditarily transmissible. The minutiae in the finger prints of twins seem suitable objects for this purpose.
_Children of like-patterned Parents._--When two parents are alike, the average resemblance, in stature at all events, which their children bear to them, is as close as the fraternal resemblance between the children, and twice as close as that which the children bear to either parent separately, when the parents are unlike.
The fifty-eight parentages affording fifty couplets of the fore, middle, and ring-fingers respectively give 58 x 3 = 174 parental couplets in all; of these, 27 or 14 per cent are alike in their pattern, as shown by Table XXVIII. The total number of children to these twenty-seven pairs is 109, of which 59 (or 54 per cent) have the same pattern as their parents. This fact requires analysis, as on account of the great frequency of loops, and especially of the pattern No. 42 on the middle finger, a large number of the cases of similarity of pattern between child and parents would be mere random coincidences.
TABLE XXVIII.--_Children of like-patterned Parents._
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | The 27 | Patterns of-- F. M. | --of Sons. | Alike. | Total | | cases. | | | | sons. | |--------|-----------------------|-----------------|--------|-------| | 1 | Fore 1 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 2 | 34 34 | 34 | 1 | 1 | | 3 | 40 40 | 41 | ... | 1 | | 4 | 42 42 | 48 | ... | 1 | | | | | | | | 5 | Middle 40 40 | 40 | 1 | 1 | | 6 | 42 42 | 42 | 1 | 1 | | 7 | 42 42 | 42 | 1 | 1 | | 8 | 42 42 | 42, 38, 42, 42 | 3 | 4 | | 9 | 42 42 | 42 | 1 | 1 | | 10 | 42 42 | 48, 48, 14 | 1 | 4 | | 11 | 42 42 | 42 | 1 | 1 | | 12 | 42 42 | 40 | ... | 1 | | 13 | 42 42 | 1 | ... | 1 | | 14 | 42 42 | 42 | 1 | 1 | | 15 | 42 42 | 42, 46, 42 | 2 | 3 | | 16 | 42 42 | 34, 42 | 1 | 2 | | 17 | 42 42 | 42 | 1 | 1 | | 18 | 42 42 | ... | ... | ... | | | | | | | | 19 | Ring 14 14 | 33, 42, 14 | 1 | 3 | | 20 | 14 14 | 42, 16 | ... | 2 | | 21 | 14 14 | 6 | ... | 1 | | 22 | 42 42 | 40 | ... | 1 | | 23 | 42 42 | 42, 42, 42 | 3 | 3 | | 24 | 42 42 | ... | ... | ... | | 25 | 42 42 | 42, 42 | 2 | 2 | | 26 | 42 42 | 49, 14 | ... | 2 | | 27 | 46 46 | 48, 40, 16 | ... | 4 | | | | |--------|-------| | | | | 22 | 41 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | --of Daughters. | Alike. | Total || Total |Alike.| | | | daughters. ||children.| | |----------------------------|--------|------------||---------|------| | 1, 1 | 2 | 2 || 3 | 3 | | 42, 48 | ... | 2 || 3 | 1 | | 2, 40 | 1 | 2 || 3 | 1 | | 42 | 1 | 1 || 2 | 1 | | | | || | | | 40 | 1 | 1 || 2 | 2 | | ... | ... | ... || 1 | 1 | | 40 | ... | 1 || 2 | 1 | | 40, 1 | ... | 2 || 6 | 3 | | 40, 42 | 1 | 2 || 3 | 2 | | 42, 42, 48, 42, 42 | 4 | 5 || 9 | 5 | | 1, 40 | ... | 2 || 3 | 1 | | 42, 42, 42, 42 | 4 | 4 || 5 | 4 | | ... | ... | ... || 1 | ... | | 42, 42, 42 | 3 | 3 || 4 | 4 | | 42, 42, 42, 42, 42, 42, 42 | 3 | 3 || 4 | 4 | | 33, 42 | 1 | 2 || 4 | 2 | | 40, 42, 1 | 1 | 3 || 4 | 2 | | 42, 42 (twins) | 2 | 2 || 2 | 2 | | | | || | | | 32, 40 | ... | 2 || 5 | 1 | | 16, 14, 42, 42 | 1 | 4 || 6 | 1 | | 9, 35, 48, 32, 14 | 1 | 5 || 6 | 1 | | 40 | ... | 1 || 2 | ... | | 40, 42 | 1 | 2 || 5 | 4 | | 40, 42 | 1 | 2 || 2 | 1 | | 42, 40, 42 | 2 | 3 || 5 | 4 | | 42, 42, 42 | 3 | 3 || 5 | 3 | | 16, 38 | ... | 2 || 6 | ... | | |--------|------------||---------|------| | Daughters | 37 | 65 || | | | Sons | 22 | 44 || | | | |--------|------------|| | | | Total Children | 59 | 109 || 109 | 59 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
There are nineteen cases of both parents having the commonest of the loop patterns, No. 42, on a corresponding finger. They have between them seventy-five children, of whom forty-eight have the pattern No. 42, on the same finger as their parents, and eighteen others have loops of other kinds on that same finger, making a total of sixty-six coincidences out of the possible 75, or 88 per cent, which is a great increase upon the normal proportion of loops of the No. 42 pattern in the fore, middle, and ring-fingers collectively. Again, there are three cases of both parents having a tendrilled-loop No. 15, which ranks as a whorl. Out of their total number of seventeen children, eleven have whorls and only six have loops.
Lastly, there is a single case of both parents having an arch, and all their three children have arches; whereas in the total of 109 children in the table, there are only four other cases of an arch.
This partial analysis accounts for the whole of the like-patterned parents, except four couples, which are one of No. 34, two of No. 40, and one of No. 46. These concur in telling the same general tale, recollecting that No. 46 might almost be reckoned as a transitional case between a loop and a whorl.
The decided tendency to hereditary transmission cannot be gainsaid in the face of these results, but the number of cases is too few to justify quantitative conclusions. It is not for the present worth while to extend them, for the reason already mentioned, namely, an ignorance of the allowance that ought to be made for related patterns. On this account it does not seem useful to print the results of a large amount of tabulation bearing on the simple filial relationship between the child and either parent separately, except so far as appears in the following paragraph.
_Relative Influence of the Father and the Mother._--Through one of those statistical accidents which are equivalent to long runs of luck at a gaming table, a concurrence in the figures brought out by Mr. Collins suggested to him the existence of a decided preponderance of maternal influence in the hereditary transmission of finger patterns. His further inquiries have, however, cast some doubt on earlier and provisional conclusions, and the following epitomises all of value that can as yet be said in favour of the superiority of the maternal influence.
The fore, middle, and ring-fingers of the right hands of the father, mother, and all their accessible children, in many families, were severally tabulated under the fifty-three heads already specified. The total number of children was 389, namely 136 sons and 219 daughters. The same pattern was found on the same finger, both of a child and of one or other of his parents, in the following number of cases:--
TABLE XXIX.
_Relative Influence of Father and Mother._
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | |Fore.|Middle.|Ring.|| Totals. | Corrected | | | | | | || | Totals. | | |---------------------|-----|-------|-----||---------|-----------|-----| | Father and son | 17 | 35 | 28 || 80 | 80 |}149 | | " " daughter | 29 | 52 | 30 || (111) | 69 |} | | | | | || | | | | Mother and son | 18 | 50 | 26 || 94 | 94 |}186 | | " " daughter | 38 | 75 | 35 || (148) | 92 |} | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
The entries in the first three columns are not comparable on equal terms, on account of the large difference between the numbers of the sons and daughters. This difference is easily remedied by multiplying the number of daughters by 136/219, that is by 0.621, as has been done in the fifth column headed Corrected Totals. It would appear from these figures, that the maternal influence is more powerful than the paternal in the proportion of 186 to 149, or as 5 to 4; but, as some of the details from which the totals are built up, vary rather widely, it is better for the present to reserve an opinion as to their trustworthiness.