QUESTIONABLE PATTERNS

No matter how definite fingerprint rules and pattern definitions are made, there will always be patterns
concerning which there is doubt as to the classification they should be given. The primary reason for this
is the fact that probably no two fingerprints will ever appear which are exactly alike. Other reasons are
differences in the degree of judgment and interpretation of the individual classifying fingerprints, the
difference in the amount of pressure used by the person taking the prints, and the amount or kind of ink
used. Nothing can be done about faulty inking or pressure once the prints are taken. The patterns which
are questionable merely because they seem to have characteristics of two or more types can be
classified by strict adherence to the definitions in deducing a preference. The following section is
devoted to such patterns with an explanation of each.

Figure 297 has two loop formations. The one on the left, however, has an appendage abutting upon the
shoulders of its recurve at a right angle. The left portion of the impression, therefore, is of the tented
arch type. The combination of two different types of patterns
would be classified in the whorl group (accidental), but this
impression has only the one delta. The right portion of the
pattern detail contains a true loop which fulfills all the loop
requirements, i.e., a sufficient recurve, a delta, and a ridge
count across a looping ridge. In the choice existing between a
tented arch and a loop, preference is given to the loop
classification and this impression would be classified as a loop.
[Pg 72]
Figure 298, at a glance, seems to fulfill the requirements
of a whorl (two deltas and a ridge making a complete
circuit). The part of the circuit in front of the right delta,
however, cannot be construed as a recurving ridge
because of the appendage abutting upon it in the line of
flow. This pattern, therefore, is a one-count loop.

Figure 299 is a very difficult and unusual pattern. It has characteristics of three types, the whorl, the
loop, and the tented arch. It is given the preference of an
accidental type of whorl (loop over a tented arch). This
pattern should be referenced both as a loop and as a tented
arch.
Figure 300 is shown for the purpose of explaining that in the whorl, as this print is, appendages at the
top of the recurve will not spoil or affect the recurve. Hence, the impression is a good whorl of the
central pocket loop type and needs no reference.
Figure 301 is classified as a whorl of the double loop type.
There are present two distinct loops and two deltas (the
right delta is not present as the impression was not rolled
sufficiently). The pattern is unusual because the loops are
side by side and flowing in the same direction. The tracing
is an inner tracing.[Pg 73]

Figure 302 should present no difficulty. It is classified as a plain

arch for its ridge construction follows the rule of a plain arch, i.e.,
"enter one side and flow or tend to flow to the other."
Figure 303 is a plain arch. The dot at the center is not elongated
enough to be considered an upthrust. A dot, even though as
thick and heavy as the surrounding ridges, is not considered for
any purpose but ridge counting or fixing a delta.

Figure 304 is a pattern somewhat similar to the previous illustration.

As indicated before, dots are considered as ridges only in ridge
counting and fixing a delta. This pattern, therefore, must be classified
as a plain arch, rather than a tented arch with two ending ridges and
a delta formation.
Figure 305, although showing an appendage upon each recurve on the
left side, is classified as a whorl of the central pocket loop type, with two
deltas and a recurve in front of each. To spoil the recurve of a whorl the
appendage must be connected to the recurve at the point of contact
with the line of flow.

Pg 74]In figure 306, the impression has two equally good loop
formations. As it has but one delta, it cannot be classified as a whorl
of the double loop type nor as a loop since it would be difficult to
make a preferential choice between the two looping ridges. It is
arbitrarily given the classification of a tented arch.

In figure 307, the difficulty lies in locating the delta. The only ridges
answering the definition of type lines (ridges running parallel and then
diverging to enclose the pattern area) have three ending ridges
between them. The type lines, the delta, and the core are located as
indicated. The pattern is classified as a six-count loop.
Figure 308 is classified as a tented arch, although it appears at
first glance to be a loop. Closer inspection shows that the
looping ridge does not tend to go out the side from which it
entered but rather seems to proceed downward ending in an
abutment forming a definite angle of 90°.

In figure 309, an impression is shown which at first appears to be a

loop. Closer inspection will show that one of the elements of the
loop type is missing, namely, a ridge count across a looping ridge;
for it is to be borne in mind that the recurve of the innermost loop
should be free of appendages abutting between the shoulders at
right angles. The core, in this illustration, therefore, is placed
where the appendage of the innermost loop touches the next
ridge which is a good recurve. If an imaginary line is placed
between delta and core, it will be seen that there are no
intervening ridges; hence, there is no ridge count.

Figure 310 is a pattern which contains two elements of a loop but

lacks the third. It is classified as a tented arch. Thus an impression
having a delta and a recurve, but not having a ridge count across a
looping ridge, falls into this classification.

It will be noticed that although this pattern has the resemblance of a plain arch, the center of the
impression actually contains a partially formed loop. A recurving ridge enters from the right side and
exits in the same direction. A delta also appears just below the recurve. In attempting[Pg 76] to obtain a
ridge count, it is seen that the imaginary line drawn between the delta and the core runs directly along
the ridge emanating from the former and which is joined onto the
side of the recurving ridge. For this reason, no ridge count is
possible.

Figure 311 is a tented arch. There are three loop formations, each
one of which is spoiled by an appendage abutting upon its recurve
between the shoulders at a right angle. It cannot be classified as
an accidental as the patterns are all of the same type, i.e., tented
arches. An accidental type of whorl is a combination of two or
more different types of patterns exclusive of the plain arch.

Figure 312 is a loop. It cannot be classified as a whorl of the double loop type because the formation
above the lower loop is too pointed and it also has an appendage abutting upon it at a right angle.

Figure 313 at first glance appears to be a whorl of the double loop

type. Upon closer inspection, however, it will be noticed that there are
no delta formations other than on the recurves. There are, then, two
tented arch formations. As two patterns of the same type cannot form
an accidental whorl, the impression must be classified as a tented arch.
[Pg 77]

Figure 314 is an accidental whorl, combining a loop and a tented arch.

The tented arch is directly beneath the innermost loop, and is of the
upthrust type.
Figure 315 consists of a loop over a dot with an apparent
second delta. This pattern must be classified as a loop, as a dot
may not be considered an upthrust unless elongated vertically.

Even though a dot may be as thick and heavy as the surrounding ridges, it may be considered only in
ridge counting or fixing a delta.

Figure 316 at first glance appears to be an accidental whorl, but

on closer inspection it proves to be a loop. Although there are
three delta formations present, it should be observed that
recurving ridges appear in front of only one (D-1).

Figure 317 has the general appearance of a loop. The looping ridge
A, at the center, has an appendage B abutting upon its recurve. The abutment is at right angles and
therefore spoils the recurve. The pattern is a tented arch.[Pg 78]
Figure 318 is a tented arch which approaches both the loop and the
whorl type patterns. It cannot be considered a whorl, however, as the
recurve on the left is spoiled by an appendage (figs. 58 and 59). Nor can
it be a loop because there is no ridge count across a looping ridge. The
pattern, then, is a tented arch of the type possessing two of the basic
characteristics of the loop and lacking the third. The delta and the
sufficient recurve are present but the ridge count is missing.

Figure 319 seems at first glance to be a double loop. It will be noted,

however, that the inner delta formation would be located upon the
only looping ridge of the upper loop formation. Since the delta
would be located on the only recurve, this recurving ridge is
eliminated from consideration. The pattern is classified as a loop.

Figure 320 is a loop of two counts, with the delta at B. There is a ridge
making a complete circuit present, but point A cannot be used as a
delta because it answers the definition of a type line. It should be
considered a delta only if it presented an angular formation. Placing
the delta upon the recurve would spoil that recurve.

Figure 321 shows two separate looping ridge formations appearing side
by side and upon the same side of the delta. The core in such case is
placed upon the nearer shoulder of the farther looping ridge from the
delta, the two looping ridges being considered as one loop with two
rods rising as high as the shoulder. The ridge count would be four (fig.
49).
Figure 322 is an accidental whorl. It is classified thus because it
contains elements of three different patterns, the loop, the
double loop, and the accidental. In such case the order of
preference governs. The delta at the left is point A. The delta at
the right is point C. This point becomes the delta since it is the
point nearest the center of the divergence of the type lines. Point
B is eliminated from consideration as a delta since type lines may
not proceed from a bifurcation unless they flow parallel after the
bifurcation and before diverging.[Pg 79]

Figure 323 is a loop. There are two delta formations but the dots
cannot be considered as obstructions crossing the line of flow at
right angles. This precludes the classification of the central pocket
loop type of whorl.

Figure 324 is a loop, the two recurving ridges have appendages and are
considered spoiled. The pattern cannot, therefore, be a whorl even
though two delta formations are present.

Figure 325 is classified as a tented arch. If examined closely the

pattern will be seen to have an appendage abutting at a right angle
between the shoulders of each possible recurve. Thus no sufficient
recurve is present.
Figure 326 is a plain arch. There is present no angle which
approaches a right angle. Points A, B, and X are merely
bifurcations rather than an abutment of two ridges at an angle.

Figure 327 is a tented arch, not because of the dot, however, as it

cannot be considered an upthrust. The tented arch is formed by
the angle made when the curving ridge above the dot abuts upon
the ridge immediately under and to the left of the dot.[Pg 81]

Figure 328 consists of two separate looping ridge formations in

juxtaposition upon the same side of a common delta. This
pattern cannot be called a double loop as there is no second
delta formation. In order to locate the core, the two looping
ridges should be treated as one loop with two rods in the
center. The core is thus placed on the far rod (actually on the left
shoulder of the far loop), resulting in a ridge count of four (fig.
49).

Figure 329 is a loop of three counts. It cannot be classified as a

whorl as the only recurve is spoiled by the appendage abutting
upon it at the point of contact with the line of flow.
Figure 330 is a plain arch as there is no upthrust (an upthrust must
be an ending ridge), no backward looping turn, and no two ridges
abutting upon each other at a sufficient angle.

Figure 331 is a plain arch. The ending ridge at the center does not
rise at a sufficient angle to be considered an upthrust, and it does
not quite meet the ridge toward which it is flowing and therefore
forms no angle.[Pg 82]

Figure 332 is a plain arch. There are two ending ridges, but no separate delta formation is present.
Figure 333 is a plain arch. The rising ridge at the center is curved at
the top forming no angle, and does not constitute an upthrust
because it is not an ending ridge.

Figure 334 is a whorl of the double loop type. Two loops and two
deltas are present. It is unusual because the loops are juxtaposed
instead of one flowing over the other, and one delta is almost
directly over the other. The tracing is a meeting tracing.

Figure 335 is a tented arch. Although there is a looping ridge, no

ridge count can be obtained. The core is placed upon the end of the
ridge abutting upon the inside of the loop, and so the imaginary line
crosses no looping ridge, which is necessary.

Figure 336 is a plain arch. The ending ridge at the center cannot be considered an upthrust because it
does not deviate from the general direction of flow of the ridges on
either side. No angle is present as the ending ridge does not abut
upon the curving ridge which envelopes it.[Pg 83]
Figure 337 is a plain arch because the dot cannot be considered a
delta as it is not as thick and heavy as the surrounding ridges.

Figure 338 is a tented arch consisting of two ending ridges and a delta. The short ending ridge is
considered a ridge because it is slightly elongated and not a mere dot.[Pg 84]

figure 339, the only question involved is where to stop tracing. The rule is: when tracing on a ridge with
an upward trend, stop at the point on the upward trend which is
nearest to the right delta. X is the point in this pattern.

figure 340, the question involved is also one of tracing. In this pattern,
the tracing is not on a ridge with an upward trend. The tracing,
therefore, is continued until a point nearest to the right delta, or the
right delta itself, is reached. This tracing is a meeting tracing.

There are a few constantly recurring patterns which, though not

questionable or doubtful as they appear, present a peculiarly difficult
problem in classifying. The patterns
referred to are usually double loops,
though accidental whorls and loops
sometimes present the same problems.
The difficulty arises when a loop is so
elongated that the recurve does not
appear until near the edge of a fully rolled
impression or an impression that is rolled
unusually far, as in figures 341 to 344.

Figure 341, if classified as it

appears, would be an accidental
whorl. Figures 342 and 343
would be double loops, and illustration 344, a loop. It will be observed that these prints are rolled more
fully than normal. If, however, the next time the prints are taken, they are not rolled quite[Pg 85] so far,
the patterns would require a very different classification, and would show no indication of any need for
referencing to their true classification. The result would be a failure to establish an identification with
the original prints. The only way in which such an error may be avoided is to classify such impressions as
they would appear if not so fully rolled, and to conduct a reference search in the classification which
would be given to the prints when rolled to the fullest extent. Applying this rule, illustration 341 is a
tented arch, referenced to a whorl. Figures 342 and 343 are loops, referenced to whorls. Figure 344 is a
plain arch, referenced to a loop.

No set rule can possibly be devised to enable a classifier to know with certainty where to draw the line
when it is doubtful which classification should be given such a print. Individual judgment is the only
standard. The test is: if the pattern, in the opinion of the classifier, is rolled to only a normal width, it
should be classified as it appears. If it seems to be rolled to a width beyond the normal degree, it should
be classified as if rolled only to the normal degree. Age, weight, size of fingers (as seen in[Pg 86] the
plain impressions), heaviness of the ridges, and experience of the technician in taking fingerprints are all
factors in arriving at the correct conclusion. The necessity for exercising the utmost care in dealing with
this type of pattern cannot be too highly emphasized.

The patterns in figures 345 and 346 also have a second loop near the edge of the impression. In these
two patterns, however, the second loop is very near the delta and consequently will almost invariably
appear even though not rolled to the fullest extent. The foregoing rule is not applied to this type of
impression. Both are classified as a whorl and referenced to a loop to take care of the rare contingency
of nonappearance.
Reference

https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/fbiscienceoffingerprints.html#chapter_iii