Classification Of Scarred Patterns



Emphasis should be placed upon the necessity for fully referencing all

scarred patterns. In connection with their proper classification, the

following rules should be observed:



- When an impression is so scarred that neither the general

type of pattern nor the ridge tracing or count can be

determined with reasonable accuracy, the impression should

be given both the general type value and the

subclassification value of the corresponding finger of the

other hand.



- When an impression is partially scarred, i.e., large scars

about the core so that the general type cannot be

determined with reasonable accuracy, but the ridges allow

reasonably accurate subclassifications by ridge tracings or

counting, the impression should be given the primary value

of the pattern of the corresponding finger and the

subclassification value as indicated by the ridges of

partially scarred impressions.



- When an impression is partially scarred and the general

type of pattern can be determined with reasonable accuracy,

but the ridges cannot be traced or counted so as to fall

within the proper subsecondary classification, the

impression should be given the ridge count or tracing value

of the corresponding finger of the other hand, if the

corresponding finger is of the same general type. If the

corresponding finger is not of the same general type, the

scarred impression should be given the probable value and

referenced to all other possibilities.



- When an impression is so scarred that neither the general

type of pattern nor the ridge tracing or count can be

determined with reasonable accuracy, and it so happens that

the corresponding finger of the other hand is similarly

scarred, both patterns are given the arbitrary value of

whorls with meeting tracings.



In figure 355, the pattern is entirely obliterated. It could have been

a small whorl, a small ulnar or radial loop, an arch, or a tented

arch. If the opposite finger were an arch or tented arch or whorl,

this impression would be classified as arch, tented arch, or whorl

(with the same tracing). If the opposite finger were a small-count

loop, this would be classified as a loop of the same count. If the

opposite finger were a large-count loop, this impression would be

given the count of the opposite finger even though it could never have

had that count. If the opposite finger were scarred in the same

fashion or were amputated or missing, both impressions would be

classified as whorls with meeting tracings.



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.















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.



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.









;