| Author | Message | ||
     Ernie Hamm (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted From: mail3.armorholdings.com |
There have been a number of articles written about friction ridge skin patterns in primates that have been published in Fingerprint Whorld and Identification News (prior name of Journal of Forensic Identification). These are the product of John Berry (UK). | ||
| christopher bily (Forensicteach) Member Username: Forensicteach Post Number: 1 Registered: 09-2007 |
Has anybody ever written an article that discusses all of the animals that posess friction ridge skin, where it's located on each animal, and what if any identification value it has? | ||
| Bert |
You can find some examples here : http://www.fingerprints.tk/ Bert | ||
| dries |
nose prints of cows also differ for cow to cow was studied by general Putter from south africa | ||
| Kasey Wertheim |
David, Your hypothesis fits well with the theories of natural selection and survival of the fittest. And to address your last paragraph, I believe the entire phase would have to shift. A longer critical stage would still leave room for the presence of arches in primates, a phenomenon that I believe has not been observed. Even loops are elusive. Of course, we are forgetting something... what if it isn't the timing of friction ridge formation that shifts earlier... what if it is the timing of volar pad development and regression that shifts LATER!!?? -Kasey | ||
| David Fairhurst |
Just to further the discussion, because I find it fun too :) Here’s my argument for why we see a predomination of whorls in monkeys and apes but greater variation of pattern type in humans. What do you think Kasey? The whorl is the pattern that is best for resisting slippage in all directions. This would create a very strong selective force in our arboreal common ancestor. A fall from a tree can kill :( So any small variations are weeded out by natural selection and the whorl continues to predominate in any arboreal descendant species i.e. monkeys and apes. When our ancestors ‘came down from the trees and walked upright’ to coin a phrase, the selective forces keeping our patterns as whorls were reduced. Dropping a rock on your foot is not often fatal :) This relaxation of selective forces creates a population in which variation can increase. This is know as ‘evolutionary drift' and probably accounts for the different distributions of pattern type in different ethnic populations. Now, I can’t argue either way whether the relaxation of the selective forces allowed the timing of FRS development to vary to a greater degree so that one end of the range extends into the critical stage, or that it allowed the whole timing range to drift into the critical stage. I will go for the generic answer of ‘it’s probably a bit of both’. David ?:^) | ||
| Kasey Wertheim |
Tom, That sounds like an interesting article! If you wouldn't mind, post the reference (or link) to the article for anyone else interested. And David; I thought about jumping right in with an answer, but I can't have all the fun!!... I wanted to leave it open for a few days and get some more input. David is right on with his answer. It is quite possible that the timing mechanism that dictates when friction ridge skin begins to form is less variable than the same mechanism in humans. It is still unclear what that mechanism is, but it is thought to be a critical thickness of the skin, chemical signals through the blood, or innervation. (that just about covers everything! :) It is also possible that the timing has simply shifted to a slightly earlier time. We know that primates have a much higher percentage of whorls than humans. We also know that the whorl pattern forms on the volar pad before it regresses. It only stands to reason that the over-all distribution of patterns will therefore be more uniform in a population displaying mostly whorl patterns; there is nowhere else to display variability! So under this model, it would not necessarily be that the timing of FRS development is less variable, it would be that the same level of variability doesn't affect the pattern enough to change from one pattern type to another. After all, the definition of a whorl is only what we say it is! It would be interesting to see the patterns themselves. Of course there is a third option here: that the size and shape of the volar pads are not as variable (prior to the critical stage) in primates. I don't like this option quite as much as the other two, but it is a possibility. Fun discussion!! :) -Kasey | ||
| David Fairhurst |
Tom, All anthropiods (monkeys and apes) and some prosimians (lemurs, bushbabies, ect.) have friction ridge skin on their volar surfaces. It is thought to be an adaptation to the arboreal lifestyle and the grasping function of the chiridia (hands and feet). The remark about chimpanzees inheriting the patterns of parents probably stems from a greater degree of control over the timing of friction ridge and volar pad development in the embryo. This would result in more uniformity in pattern type and size. However Kasey and Alice are probably more qualified to answer that than I am. (Hinting that Kasey should jump in here) Of course this does not mean that any fingerprints could ever be exactly the same. When we exclude all other possible donors of an identified print we need not limit this to human donors. We can confidently say that the print was not made by any chimpanzee or gibbon either. It is also worth noting that friction ridge skin is not confined to the volar surfaces, or to primates. The knuckle-walking apes (chimpanzees and gorillas) have developed friction ridge skin on the dorsal surfaces of the medial phalanges. The spider monkeys of South America have friction ridge skin on the grasping surface of their prehensile tails. Neither of these surprising when examined carefully. Perhaps more interesting is the occurrence of friction ridge skin, or very similar skin in other arboreal mammals. The most well know of these is the Koala, a marsupial. If we track the evolutionary history of modern marsupials and modern primates to find their common ancestor we have go to right back to the primitive mammals with horny volar walking pads covered in rows of mammalian scales. What we are seeing therefore must be a case of “parallel evolution”. Two distantly related groups of animals both adapted to the same habitat and lifestyle by developing the same type of skin on the volar surfaces without their common ancestor having such a feature. David ?:^) | ||
| Tom Balboni |
I just read some information that discussed inherited fingerprint patterns. This article stated that although human fingerprint patterns often differ greatly among offspring, chimpanzees often do inherit the fingerprint patterns of the parent. I was under the impression that fingerprints were unique to humans. Anyone have any insight to this subject. I have examined many human fingerprints but I have never examined the palmer surfaces of any apes. |
