CHAPTER

SYSTEMS OF FRICTION
RIDGE CLASSIFICATION
Laura A. Hutchins

CONTENTS
5.1 Introduction to Classification 18 5.7 Computer Automation
Systems and Print Classification

3 5.2 Criminal Identification 24 5.8 Conclusion

of the Past

4 5.3 Beginnings of Classification 24 5.9 Reviewers

7 5.4 Birth of Modern Classification 24 5.10 References

Systems

10 5.5 Single-Fingerprint Systems 25 5.11 Additional Information

12 5.6 Footprint and Palmprint .

Classification Systems

5–1
 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 5
SYSTEMS OF FRICTION 5.1 Introduction to Classification
Systems
RIDGE CLASSIFICATION The concept of friction ridge individualization as an infal-
lible means of individualization is rooted in the history of

Laura A. Hutchins man and our inherent need to individualize ourselves, and
be individualized, in an ever-expanding world. As popula-
tions grew and cities filled with differing classes of people,
the populations of jails and prisons grew also. The ability
to accurately identify repeat offenders was critical to the
effectiveness of criminal justice institutions. It became
paramount that an accurate method of individualization
be developed.

5.2 Criminal Identification

of the Past
Prior to any type of scientific criminal identification, the
criminal justice community used purely visible methods to
determine identity. These methods involved tattoos or
scarification to denote criminals. However, this type of
identification was seen as barbaric and inefficient. It was not
until the advent of photography that a more humane method
of criminal identification was devised.

This method involved taking photographs of all those who

were arrested and incorporating the photographs into a
compendium of identification, known as a rogues’ gallery.
(For more on rogues’ galleries, see Chapter 8.) The use of
the rogues’ gallery as means of criminal identification soon
proved nonscientific and ineffective because, when offend-
ers were released, they could change their appearance.
A simple haircut and change of clothes could render the
offender unrecognizable. Additionally, many police depart-
ments lacked the insight to standardize the photographs that
were taken of those who were arrested (Dilworth, 1977, p 1).

5–3
CHAPTER 5 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification

For example, women kept their hats on and veils down, with and productive, each of the 11 measurements was further
their heads tilted, when being photographed for the gallery. subdivided into three variation range groups.
Yet, for the criminal justice community, photography was the
only means of documenting the identity of criminals. This classification system became the first scientific
system that was used to identify criminals. In fact, in 1884,
Bertillonage, as his system came to be known, identified
5.2.1 Alphonse Bertillon and Anthropometry*
241 repeat offenders (Beavan, 2001, p 91). Because of this
Alphonse Bertillon began his public service career in 1879 impressive track record, other European and American
when, having fulfilled his military service in the French criminal justice institutions quickly adopted Bertillonage.
army, he joined the Paris Prefecture of Police as a clerk in
the Identification Division. He was tasked with the mono- As more police institutions began to maintain Bertillon
tonous job of recording on index cards the physical descrip- records, it became apparent that the system was flawed
tions of individuals who had been arrested. At the time, and was merely a band-aid on the still-evident problem of
this was the only method that was available to identify reliable criminal identification. The foremost problem was
recidivists. that measurements taken by different officers were either
different enough to preclude future identifications or similar
Bertillon’s first contribution to the reorganization of the enough to identify two individuals as the same person.
department’s criminal files was to incorporate the use of
standard photography. Previous photography had been hap- Another problem was that the 243 basic categories in
hazard and inconsistent. Within a month of his appointment the system were sufficient for an agency handling 5,000
as a records clerk, he started an organized and standard to 10,000 records, but collections that exceeded 10,000
system of photography. This system entailed the taking of records presented problems; officers found themselves
full-face and profile portraits of the criminals entering the searching through categories that contained an unwieldy
criminal justice system. amount of cards. The time that was required to check for
duplicate records increased from a few minutes to several
In 1882, having contributed greatly to the existing substan- hours. Additionally, the aging process could affect the
dard method of criminal identification, Bertillon took on accuracy of the measurements, especially if the measure-
the task of establishing the identity of recidivists through a ments on record had been taken when the individual was
more scientific means (Rhodes, 1956, pp 71–101). Reflect- not fully grown.
ing upon his family’s professions as statisticians, demog-
raphers, and physicians, he embarked on the creation of a The realization of these challenges, along with the introduc-
standard method of identification that was based on the tion of fingerprints as a method of identification, would
measurement of specific body parts: anthropometry. He be- eventually bring an end to use of the Bertillon system. Yet
lieved that by recording the body measurements of a crimi- it was not until the early 20th century that anthropometry
nal, he was establishing that criminal’s body formula which was completely dismissed as a method of criminal identifi-
would apply to that one person and would not change. cation in Europe and in the United States.

By 1883, Bertillon believed that he had devised a complete

system of criminal identification. The information that was 5.3 Beginnings of Classification
recorded was divided into three sections: (1) descriptive
data such as height, weight, and eye color; (2) body marks 5.3.1 Johannes Evangelist Purkinje
such as scars, tattoos, and deformities; and (3) body mea-
Johannes Evangelist Purkinje was a Czech professor of
surements. He chose 11 specific body measurements that
pathology and physiology at the University of Breslau in
he thought could be easily and accurately measured. To
Prussia. He was a prolific scientist who made numerous
create a system of classification that would be manageable
contributions to the field of medicine. He researched sweat
pores and skin, introduced the word plasma, devised new
methods of preparing microscope samples, and researched
visual phenomena (Jay, 2000, p 663).
* For more information on Bertillon and the other scientists discussed in this
chapter, see chapter 1.

5–4
 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification CHAPTER 5

In 1823, Purkinje published his most famous medical thesis, acids, and caustics—to remove their friction ridges. As he
Commentatio de Examine Physiologico Organi Visus et had hoped, the friction ridges grew back exactly as they
Systematis Cutanei (A Commentary on the Physiological had been before.
Examination of the Organs of Vision and the Cutaneous
Faulds also needed to prove that fingerprints did not change
System). In this thesis, he described nine classifiable finger-
during the growth process. To this end, he observed the
print patterns (Ashbaugh, 1999, p 40): (1) transverse curve,
fingerprints of growing children over a period of two years
(2) central longitudinal stria, (3) oblique stripe, (4) oblique
and determined that friction ridges changed only in size and
loop, (5) almond whorl, (6) spiral whorl, (7) ellipse, (8) circle,
not in uniqueness.
and (9) double whorl. At this time, this was the only detailed
description of fingerprint patterns to appear in the scientific Having determined the individuality and permanence of
record. Although it is obvious that he recognized the clas- fingerprints, Faulds published his findings in the journal
sification element of friction ridge formations, he did not Nature (Faulds, 1880, p 605). In the article, he suggested
associate them with any type of classification system for the use of fingerprints in criminal investigations and the
use in personal identification (Faulds, 1905, p 33). use of printer’s ink in obtaining fingerprints. In addition, he
mentioned two categories of fingerprint patterns: loops
5.3.2 Dr. Henry Faulds’ Syllabic System and whorls.
of Classification
During the next few years, Faulds developed a syllabic sys-
Dr. Henry Faulds was a Scottish physician and superinten- tem for classifying fingerprints (Faulds, 1912, pp 83–100).
dent of Tsukji Hospital in Tokyo, Japan. In the late 1870s, He felt that learning this type of classification system
Faulds developed a friendship with the American archae- would be natural and quite easy for an identification official.
ologist Edward S. Morse. While assisting Morse during His idea was based on his perception that the human brain
an excavation, Faulds noticed the patent impression of a can quickly associate an object with a sound.
fingerprint in a piece of broken clay. It was at this moment
that the connection between fingerprints and individualiza- In his system, each hand was represented by five syllables,
tion was formulated in his mind (Beavan, 2001, p 69). one syllable for each finger, with each syllable separated
by a hyphen. Syllables were constructed from an estab-
Faulds devised a method of using ink to record the finger- lished list of 21 consonants and 6 vowels representing set
print impressions of all 10 fingers on cards and soon had fingerprint pattern characteristics (Table 5–1). For example,
collected thousands of fingerprint cards. His collection one hand may be represented and spoken as “RA-RA-
became invaluable when the police accused a member of RA-RA-RA”. (In more complex examples, fingers may be
his medical staff of attempted burglary, committed by scal- represented by two or more syllables).
ing the hospital wall and entering through a window. He
compared a latent print that had been found on the Based solely on the primary breakdown of the consonants
wall with the accused staff member’s fingerprints in his alone, Faulds produced a classification system that had the
collection and determined that the latent print had not potential to create nearly 17 trillion classifications (Beaven,
been left by his staff member. 2001, p 131).

Realizing that fingerprints could be the solution to the In addition to creating a strand of syllables to represent
burgeoning problem of criminal identification, Faulds was each hand, Faulds believed that there should be a single-
determined to prove that fingerprints were the key to ac- finger index. This index would prove useful in comparing
curate and reliable personal individualization. To prove his latent prints from a crime scene, provided that the syllable
theory, Faulds researched the permanence and individu- of the latent print could be derived from the known single
ality of fingerprints. To prove individuality, he compared prints on file.
the thousands of fingerprint cards he had collected and
In 1886, Faulds offered to establish a fingerprinting bureau
determined that the fingerprints on each card were unique.
in Scotland Yard, at his expense, and to institute his finger-
To prove permanence, Faulds and his medical students
print classification system (Russell, 2004). However, Scot-
used various means—razors, pumice stones, sandpaper,
land Yard declined the offer and maintained Bertillonage as
the agency’s method of criminal identification.

5–5
CHAPTER 5 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification

5.3.3 Sir Francis Galton and the

Table 5–1 Tripartite Classification
Faulds’ description of syllables. Sir Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin, was a noted
English scientist. Galton developed an interest in finger-
Consonant Pattern Description prints in 1888 when he was asked to present a lecture on
CH Hook with short leg facing right personal identification. To prepare for the lecture, he re-
searched Bertillonage, the then-current method of personal
J Hook with short leg facing left
identification. After investigating the use of anthropometry
B Convex bow with left lineation for criminal identification, he became a critic of the tech-
P Convex bow with right lineation nique. His criticism stemmed from the observation that
Bertillon measurements did not take into account the cor-
T Pear-shaped, free-floating
relation between stature and limb length (Galton, 1889, pp
D Pear-shaped, fixed by stem 403–405). He believed that the continued use of Bertillon-
K Spindle with one stem age as a method of criminal identification would lead to an
unacceptably high rate of false identifications. He noted
G Spindled with stems on both ends
also that the taking of Bertillon measurements was time-
W Clockwise whorl consuming and the measurements could vary, depending
V Counter-clockwise whorl on who was taking them.

Q Large circle/oval w/elements As a result of his distaste for anthropometry, Galton re-
M Volcanic mountain peak searched the use of fingerprints for personal individualiza-
tion. His research led him to Faulds’ article in Nature and a
N Flag-staff on mountain top
rebuttal letter that same year by Sir William Herschel that
L Loop with straight axis stated that he had discovered fingerprint individualization
R Loop with curved axis first and had been using it in India since 1860 (Herschel,
1880, p 76). Soon after, Galton began corresponding with
S Sinuous with no angles
Herschel and obtained his collection of fingerprint data.
Z Zigzag with angularity
After four years of intensive study and research, Galton
X Nondescript
published his famous book Finger Prints (1892) in which
Aspirate used strictly for he established that fingerprints are both permanent and
F
pronunciation unique. He also realized that for fingerprints to become a
Aspirate used strictly for viable method of personal individualization, a systematic,
H understandable, and applicable system of fingerprint clas-
pronunciation
sification had to be developed.
Vowel Pattern Description

A Interior empty, simple In his book, Galton formulated a classification system that
was based on the alphabetical enumerations of the three
E Three short ridges/dots
fingerprint patterns: L represented a loop, W represented
Simple detached line/no more than two
I a whorl, and A represented an arch. To classify a set of fin-
lines in heart of encircling pattern
gerprints, the pattern for each finger was labeled with one
O Small circle/oval/dot in core of these three letters. The letters for the right hand’s index,
U Fork with 2+ prongs in core middle, and ring fingers were grouped together, followed
by the letters for the left hand’s index, middle, and ring
Fork with prongs turning away from
Y fingers. After this string of letters, the letters for the right
concavity
thumb and right little finger were recorded, followed by the
letters for the left thumb and left little finger. For example, a

5–6
 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification CHAPTER 5

person with the right hand possessing all whorls except for system that used subcategories to classify, file, and locate
the little finger having a loop, and the left hand having all fingerprint cards. He initially called his system icnofalan-
loops except for the little finger having a whorl, would have gométrica, meaning “finger track measurement”. In 1896,
the following classification: WWWLLLWLLW. This classifi- he renamed the system dactiloscopía, meaning “finger
cation code would then be recorded on a card and the card description” (Rodriguez, 2004).
filed alphabetically by this classification.
Vucetich’s system was an expansion of the three patterns
Two years after the publication of his book, Galton’s elemen- established by Galton: the arch, the loop, and the whorl.
tary fingerprint classification system was incorporated into However, Vucetich further divided the loop into internal
the Bertillonage files at Scotland Yard. Although this was a loop (left slope) and external loop (right slope) categories,
success for him, his classification system proved too rudi- creating four types of patterns: arch, internal loop, external
mentary for a large number of files and would not stand on loop, and whorl.
its own as a method of cataloging and classifying criminals.
The classification consisted of four single letters, repre-
senting the pattern on the thumb, and four single numbers,
5.4 Birth of Modern Classification representing the patterns on the remaining fingers (Table
5–2). Like Galton’s classification system, Vucetich’s system
Systems started with the right-hand thumb and ended with the left
little finger.
5.4.1 Juan Vucetich and
the Argentine System
Table 5–2
Juan Vucetich was born in Croatia and immigrated to
Argentina in 1882. Within four years, he was working at Vucetich’s pattern-type symbols.
the Buenos Aires Police Department, collecting arrest and
Pattern Thumbs Other Fingers
crime statistics. Within a few more years, Vucetich became
head of the Office of Identification. Arch A 1

Internal loop I 2
During his tenure, Vucetich came to the realization that
Bertillonage was an ineffective method of criminal identifi- External loop E 3
cation. Concern regarding the mobility of criminals in and Whorl V 4
out of Argentina prompted him to search for a more effec-
tive method of identification. His search ended when he
read the French journal Revue Scientifique (1891) detailing The Vucetich classification system consisted of a basic
Galton’s research into the scientific use of fingerprints as classification (called the primary) and a more descriptive
a means of individualization. After reading this article, he secondary classification using extensions. The primary
began his campaign to incorporate the use of fingerprinting classification was divided into two groups: the numera-
into the criminal justice system of Argentina. His campaign tor and the denominator. The numerator was termed the
paid off, and that same year (1891), fingerprints replaced series and represented the right hand. The denominator
Bertillonage at the Office of Identification. This was the first was termed the section and represented the left hand.
occurrence of fingerprint individualization officially usurping The right thumb (called the fundamental) and the remain-
anthropometry. ing right-hand fingers (called the division) represented the
series. The left thumb (called the subclassification) and the
Having achieved a major milestone, Vucetich realized that remaining left-hand fingers (called the subdivision) repre-
for the science of fingerprints to be accepted worldwide, sented the section. For example, if both the numerator and
a useful and manageable classification system had to be denominator were A1141, then both the right hand and the
created. Working from Galton’s overly general three-pattern left hand had arches in all the fingers except for the ring
classification system, he quickly created a classification fingers, which had whorls.

5–7
CHAPTER 5 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification

The secondary classification further subdivided the finger- For example, a person whose right-hand fingers all have
prints into five subtypes: 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Each number external (right slope) loops and whose left-hand fingers all
represented a further description of the pattern, applied have internal (left slope) loops would have a Vucetich clas-
to either hand, and was placed as a superscript in paren- sification of:
theses (Table 5–3). When the pattern type was a normal
E(20) 3(10) 3(5) 3(15) 3(10)
loop variety, the superscript defaulted to ridge count values
(Table 5–4). I(10) 2(5) 2(10) 2(10) 2(5)

In 1896, Vucetich published his new classification system

Table 5–3 in a pamphlet entitled General Instructions for the Province
Vucetich’s secondary classification. of Buenos Aires System of Identification. In 1904, he pub-
lished the book that would take his classification system
Pattern Superscript Description across the world: Dactiloscopía Comparada (Comparative
Fingerprinting): The New Argentine System.
Arch 5 Vaulted/Normal

6 Left-inclined 5.4.2 Sir Edward Henry and the

7 Right-inclined Henry Classification System
8 Tent-shaped In the early 1890s, Sir Edward Henry was the new Inspec-
9 All others tor General of the Bengal District Police in India and was
experiencing a common problem of the day: the inability to
Internal loop 5 Normal flow
accurately identify the native people. After reading Galton’s
6 Invaded Finger Prints, he was convinced that he could create a logi-
7 Interrogatory cal and applicable system of fingerprint classification that
would enable fingerprints to become the sole system of
8 Hooked
personal and criminal identification.
9 All others
Designation same Henry returned to England in 1894 and developed a personal
External loop and professional relationship with Galton. Galton provided
as Internal loop
him with his personal research material, along with that of
Whorl 5 Normal
Herschel and Faulds. With this information in hand, Henry
6 Sinuous returned to India to solve the fingerprint classification
7 Ovoid problem. Even without a classification system, in 1896 he
ordered his police officers to begin taking fingerprints along
8 Hooked
with anthropometric measurements of Bengali prisoners.
9 All others
Meanwhile, Henry assigned two of his police officers from
the Calcutta Anthropometric Bureau to work on the finger-
print classification project. By 1897, the two officers, Azizul
Table 5–4 Haque and Hem Chandra Bose, formulated a mathematical
Vucetich’s ridge count values. method of dividing fingerprint records into a large number
of primary groupings that were based on Galton’s finger-
Ridge Count Spread Superscript Value print pattern types.

1–5 5 The Henry system began with the formulation of the

6–10 10 primary. The primary was determined by assigning a value
to each of the 10 fingers, starting with the right thumb and
11–15 15
ending with the left little finger. This value was based on
16–20 20

Over 20 25

5–8
 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification CHAPTER 5

the presence of a whorl on a particular finger (Table 5–5). If The chart is then calculated as follows:
the finger did not contain a whorl, it was assigned a value
of zero.
1 + (Sum of Even
Finger Values) 1 + (15) 16
_______________ = ______ = __
Table 5–5
1 + (Sum of Odd 1 + (29) 30
Henry’s primary values (Henry, 1900, pp 72–73). Finger Values)

Finger Number Value if Whorl

This classification system allowed for 1,024 primary
Right thumb 1 16
groupings.
Right index 2 16
To the right of the primary was the secondary. The second-
Right middle 3 8
ary was determined by the pattern types in the #2 and #7
Right ring 4 8 fingers and was shown in the formula by capital letters
Right little 5 4 representing the pattern (A for arch, T for tented arch, R for
radial loop, U for ulnar loop, and W for whorl). To account
Left thumb 6 4
for the rarity of arches, tented arches, and radial loops in
Left index 7 2 nonindex fingers, these patterns were indicated by lower
Left middle 8 2 case letters (a, t, r) and placed after the secondary. If one
of these patterns was present in the thumb(s), the small
Left ring 9 1
letter was placed to the left of the primary. The subsecond-
Left little 10 1 ary was to the right of the secondary and represented the
ridge counts for loops or ridge tracing for whorls in the
The primary was expressed in ratio form, with the numera- remaining fingers.
tor representing the whorl values of the even fingers plus
This new classification system was so successful that in
1 and the denominator representing the whorl values of
March of 1897, the British Indian government instituted
the odd fingers plus 1. For example, if an individual had a
the Henry classification system as the official method of
fingerprint record with a pattern series of all whorls, the
criminal identification. By 1900, the success of the Henry
corresponding primary classification would be 32 over 32.
system in India made Scotland Yard review its own identi-
If a person had loops in the right and left index fingers, the
fication system. This review resulted in the abandonment
primary classification chart would be as follows:
of Bertillonage and the adoption of the Henry system. In
1901, Henry was transferred to Scotland Yard, where he
set up its first central fingerprint bureau and began training
Right Right Right Right Right
thumb index middle ring little officers in fingerprint classification.

16 0 8 8 4
5.4.3 Offshoots of the Henry and
Left Left Left Left Left
Vucetich Classification Systems
thumb index middle ring little Both Vucetich and Henry gained international recognition
4 0 2 1 1 in the arena of scientific criminal identification. Vucetich
traveled the world promoting his book, and Henry gained
the backing of the modern European world. Both sys-
tems were considered superior to Bertillonage, and both
systems had equal recognition in international police and
scientific circles.

5–9
CHAPTER 5 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification

Table 5–6 Table 5–7

Classifications based on Henry and Vucetich systems. Single-fingerprint systems.

Parent System Modified System (Location) Based on Existing Original Single-

Classification Systems Fingerprint Systems
Henry Australian (Australia) Collins Born
Budapest (Budapest)
Larson Moran
Valladares (Portugal)
Oloritz Code
Pateer (Amsterdam)
Borgerhoff Sagredo
Windt Kodicek (Germany)
Spirlet (The Hague) Stockis Dresden

Steegers (Cuba) Gasti Register Barlow

Conlay (Federated Malay States Lyonnese Jaycox
Police)
Neben Register of Roscher Crosskey
American (New York City)
Battley
Flak Conley (Newark, NJ)
Giraud and Henquel
RCMP (Canada)
FBI Extensions (Washington, DC) Jorgensen

Vucetich Bertillon (France) Monodacylus

Pottecher (Indo-China)
Mirando Pinto (Chile) As other agencies began to adopt these classification sys-
Pessoa (Unkown) tems, the systems were often modified (Table 5–6). Modi-
Henry-Vucetich Daae (Norway) fications involved the creation of extensions to produce
Protivenski (Prague) classification systems that could handle larger populations
(McGinnis, 1963, p 115). For example, the United States
Olóriz (Madrid)
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) incorporated exten-
Martinez (Mexico)
sions relating to the ridge counts and whorl tracings of spe-
Borgerhoff (Belgium) cific fingers to split up the rapidly populating primary and
Harvey Pacha (Egypt) secondary groupings.
Cabezas (Valparaiso)
Klatt (Berlin)
Brussels (Belgium)
5.5 Single-Fingerprint Systems
Roscher (Hamburg) Although the known-print classification systems were
Japanese National useful for the identification of repeat offenders, they did
not aid in the apprehension of criminals by identifying
Lebedoff (Russia)
latent prints left at crime scenes. To address this limitation,
When (Berlin)
numerous single-fingerprint classification systems were
Smallegange (Holland) developed. Some of these systems were based on existing
Gasti (Italy) known-print classification systems and some were fully
Portillo (Barcelona) original (Table 5–7). Of all these single-fingerprint classifica-
Lyonnese (Lyon) tion systems, Chief Inspector Henry Battley and Detec-
tive Superintendent Fredrick Cherrill of New Scotland Yard
Jouenne (Colonial Service in French
developed the most popular system.
West Africa)

5–10
 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification CHAPTER 5

Ridge tracing I, M, O
Table 5–8
Circle reading of
A–H
Battley’s subgroup designations (Cherrill, 1954, pp 82–90). right delta
Ridge count
Pattern Subdivisions Designation between left #
delta and core
Arches Plain arch 1 Ridge count
Left-sloping 2 between right #
delta and core
Right-sloping 3 Radial or ulnar
Circle reading Twinned loops slope of R,U
Tented arches (summit of first A–H descending loop
platform ridge) Circle reading
Ridge count of core of A–H
Radial loops between delta # descending loop
and core Ridge count
#
Predetermined between loops
A–L
core definition Ridge count
Circle reading of between core
A–H #
delta and delta of
Ridge count descending loop
Ulnar loops between delta # Circle reading of
A–H
and core left delta
Predetermined Ridge tracing I, M, O
A–L
core definitions
Circle reading of
Circle reading of A–H
A–H right delta
delta
Lateral pocket Radial or ulnar
Whorls / Central Circle reading of slope of majority R, U
first recurving A–H loop of ridges
pocket loops ridge
Ridge count be-
A.1 tween delta and
Predetermined #
core of innermost
core definitions A.2 loop
limited to small
spirals in “A” A.3 Composite No subdivision
circle reading Accidental No subdivision
A.4
Severely scarred Cannot classify
Circle reading of
A–H
left delta

5.5.1 Battley Single-Fingerprint System ulnar inclination, ridge counts, ridge tracings, formation of
the core(s), position of the delta(s), and circle readings. A
In 1929, Battley and Cherrill developed the idea of a
specific subdivision, known as a circle reading, was derived
single-fingerprint system that did not require all 10 known
using a special magnifying glass with a plain glass win-
fingerprints of an individual. They postulated that latent
dow at the base. This base window consisted of a center
fingerprints found at a crime scene could be individualized
circle with a dot in the middle, designated as area A, and
using a known print of the same finger of the offender.
seven concentric circles, each 2 mm in width, designated
The Battley system used 10 main patterns followed by ad- B through H. The center dot was placed over a designated
ditional subdivisions, depending on the pattern designation point of the impression, and circle readings were taken
(Table 5–8). These additional subdivisions included radial or that were based on the position of specific formations.

5–11
CHAPTER 5 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification

In the system, the known fingerprints from an arrest card Similar to Battley, most of the other systems were
would be individually classified according to pattern and based on predetermined pattern types (i.e., whorl, arch,
established in 10 collections, one for each finger, from the and loops) with further subclassifications, such as core
right thumb to the left little finger (i.e., No. 1 collection formations, delta position, ridge counts, and ridge trac-
through No. 10 collection). ings. Although some systems were similar to the Battley
system, they differed in some respects because of added
Single-fingerprint cards were constructed by mounting
subdivisions (Table 5–10). Some systems went into great
the specific fingerprint on a card and filling in particular
detail describing the patterns, some divided each print into
information in designated areas. This information included
sections or zones and recorded the location of ridge char-
the number and name of the digit, the criminal’s reference
acteristics within that area, and some further defined the
number, the Henry classification, and the Battley classifica-
shapes of deltas (Bridges, 1963, pp 181–213).
tion (Table 5–9).

5.6 Footprint and Palmprint

Table 5–9 Classification Systems
Battley index card.
The next logical step in the evolution of friction ridge class-
ification systems was the establishment of palmprint and
TYPE CORE Subgroup Designation
footprint classification systems. Footprints and palmprints
Subgroup Designation were being detected on evidence with enough frequency
Subgroup Designation to warrant the development of classification systems.
Criminal ID No.
Subgroup Designation
Finger No. & Description 5.6.1 Classification of Footprints
Subgroup Designation
Henry Classification Along with the need for a footprint classification system
Subgroup Designation based on latent impression evidence, there was also a
Subgroup Designation need for such a classification system for filing the foot-
Adhered Fingerprint prints of newborn babies, military airmen, and people lack-
Subgroup Designation
ing arms. Two main footprint classification systems were
From Known Exemplar
Subgroup Designation developed and used over the years: the Federal Bureau of
Investigation system and the Chatterjee system.
Subgroup Designation
5.6.1.1 The FBI’s Footprint Classification System. The
The Battley system required a great deal of labor to classify FBI’s classification system was a highly modified version
and maintain the collections. Eventually, the collections of the system developed by Wentworth and Wilder in their
became too large, and it became impossible to accurately landmark book Personal Identification (1918). The basis of
and quickly individualize a latent print from a crime scene the FBI’s classification system was the observance of the
with a known single print on file. ball area of the foot, directly below the large toe. This area
typically exhibits one of three types of pattern groups: arch,
loop, or whorl. Each group was designated by a letter and
5.5.2 Additional Single-Print Systems
was further divided by type and ridge count (for loop and
As previously mentioned, there were single-print systems whorl patterns only) (FBI, 1985, p 24).
other than the Battley system. Like Battley, these other
systems were based on the classification of individual Arch patterns were designated by the letter “O”. The O
fingerprints, independent of the other fingers. These group was further subdivided according to the flow of the
systems were frequently based on existing systems or a ridges. Type 1 subdivision (O1) indicated a vertical ridge
combination of existing systems and definitions used by flow (i.e., ridges flowing from the big toe to the heel). Type
those systems. 2 subdivision (O2) indicated a horizontal ridge flow (i.e.,
ridges flowing from the big toe to the little toe). Looping

5–12
 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification CHAPTER 5

Sagredo Primary from Oloritz ten-

Table 5–10 print system

Single-print systems other than Battley No delta pattern type

(Bridges, 1963, pp 181–213). One delta pattern type
Two delta pattern type
Name of Single-
Subdivisions
Print System Pattern inclination
Collins Pattern types Ridge counts
Ridge counts Ridge tracing
Ridge tracing Delta type
Ridge characteristics Dresden Pattern type
Larson Pattern types Ridge counts
Inclination of pattern Pattern inclination
Core type Neben Register of Roscher Taken from Roscher ten-
Ridge characteristics print classification for each
finger
Delta type
Lyonnese Pattern type
Ridge tracing
Centro-basal angle from
Combinations Oloritz
Primary from Oloriz Ridge tracing
Oloriz
tenprint system
Barlow Pattern type
Core type
Core type
Limiting lines (type lines)
Pattern inclination
Delta type
Ridge counts
Apex angle
Jaycox Pattern type
Borgerhoff Pattern types
Pattern inclination
Ridge counts
Core type
Ridge tracing
Ridge characteristics of
Stockis Pattern types core
Ridge counts Jorgenson Pattern type
Apex angle Pattern inclination
Core type Ridge counts
Delta type Core type
Ridge tracing Delta position
Gasti Taken from Gasti (tenprint) Core to delta angle
classification for each
Core diameter (whorl)
finger
Crosskey Pattern type
Born Pattern type
Zone scheme with marked Core type
minutiae Ridge counts
Presence of scar

5–13
CHAPTER 5 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification

patterns were designated by the letter “L” and were further

subdivided into four types. Type a subdivision (La) indicated Table 5–11
a ridge flow entering and exiting toward the toes. Type
b and c subdivisions (Lb and Lc) indicated a ridge flow Alpha and numeric pattern representations
entering and exiting the big toe-side of the foot. (Type b
(Moenssens, 1971, p 212).
indicated the right foot and Type c indicated the left foot.)
Pattern Area 1 Areas 2–6
Type d subdivision (Ld) indicated a ridge flow entering and
exiting toward the heel of the foot. None O 0

Arch A 1
Whorl patterns were designated by the letter “W” and
were further subdivided into three types. Type w subdivi- Tented arch T 2
sion (Ww) indicated a whorl pattern that was either a plain Right-slope loop R 3
whorl or a central pocket loop whorl. Type d subdivision
Upward-slope
(Wd) indicated a double loop whorl. Type x subdivision (Wx) U 4
loop
indicated an accidental whorl.
Left-slope loop L 5
Like the Henry classification, the footprint classification Loop with
D 6
was expressed as a fraction, with the right foot as the nu- downward slope
merator and the left foot as the denominator. The fraction
Whorl W 7
was made up of the primary, secondary, final, and key. The
Central pocket
primary was the pattern group (O, L, or W) and was always C 7
loop
expressed as a capital letter. The secondary was the type
Lateral pocket
of subdivision and was placed to the right of the primary S 8
loop
(e.g., Ww). The final was the ridge count of the loop or
whorl pattern on the right foot and was placed to the right Twin loop S 8
of the secondary (e.g., Ww 25). The key was the ridge Accidental X 9
count of the loop or whorl pattern on the left foot and was
placed to the left of the secondary (e.g., 25 Ww).
The Chatterjee footprint classification was also expressed
A complete footprint classification looked like: as a fraction, with the right foot as the numerator and the
left foot as the denominator. The primary was the Area
La 32
1 pattern designation and the secondary was a five-digit
25 Wd
number, representing Areas 2 through 6, and was to the
5.6.1.2 Chatterjee Footprint Classification System. A right of the primary.
system developed by Sri Salil Kumar Chatterjee divided the
footprint into the following six areas: 5.6.2 Classification of Palmprints
Area 1: Ball of the foot, below the big toe. The classification of palmprints was a worthwhile endeavor
Areas 2–4: Interspaces below the toes. because of the frequency of latent palmprints at crime
scenes. Three classification systems were established
Area 5: Center of the foot.
for palmprints: one in Western Australia, one in Liverpool,
Area 6: Heel.
England, and another in Denmark.
Chatterjee used an alpha representation for the pattern
5.6.2.1 Western Australian Palmprint Classification. This
in Area 1 and a numeric representation for the pattern in
classification consisted of a numeric primary and an alpha
the remaining areas (Table 5–11) (Chatterjee, 1953,
and numeric secondary in the form of a fraction (Baird,
pp 179–183).
1959). The classification was based on the tripartite division
of the palm into the interdigital, thenar, and hypothenar
areas (Figure 5–1).

5–14
 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification CHAPTER 5

Table 5–12
FIGURE 5–1
Primary value determination (Baird, 1959, pp 21–24). Tripartite division
of the palm.
Area of Consideration Value

Interdigital #5 finger delta to ulnar edge 1

Interdigital #4 finger delta to #3 finger delta 2

Interdigital #3 finger delta to radial edge 4

Thenar 8

Hypothenar 16

No pattern in area 0

To obtain the primary classification, the three areas were

allotted a value based on the ridge flow in that area (Table
5–12). If there was no discernible pattern in the specified The Western Australian system used pattern definitions
area, a value of 0 was given. Notably, the values were the derived from the agencies’ known-print classification sys-
same as those for the primary in the Henry classification; tem, which was a modification of the Henry classification
however, this classification was not dependent on the pres- system. The patterns were given specific alpha symbols ac-
ence of whorls but on the presence of any type of pattern. cording to their locations in the palm (Table 5–13). A further
Because an arch pattern was typically considered to lack a subdivision of the secondary classification involved ridge
true pattern area because there was no core and delta, this counts and ridge tracings and was expressed as a fraction
pattern was only given a value when it was present in the to the right of the secondary classification.
interdigital area. As with the Henry classification, a value of
1 was added to the total. 5.6.2.2 Liverpool Palmprint Classification System. The
palmprint classification system that was established in
The secondary classification was divided into two parts. Liverpool, England, was considered a more user-friendly
The first division was the type of pattern present in the classification system than that used in Western Australia.
thenar and hypothenar areas. This subdivision was ex- The Liverpool system also concentrated on the three divi-
pressed in the form of a fraction, with the thenar as the sions of the palm.
numerator and the hypothenar as the denominator. The
second division, known as the secondary subclassification, This system was divided into four parts and consisted of
concerned the area between the thumb and the index fin- alpha and numeric symbols. The primary division pertained
ger and the interdigital area. The thumb to index area was to the cumulative patterns in all three sections: interdigital,
considered as a part of the thenar and was placed in the thenar, and hypothenar. The secondary division involved
numerator; the interdigital area was considered as part of patterns in the hypothenar and included a subsecondary
the hypothenar and was placed in the denominator. classification. The tertiary division involved patterns in the
thenar. The quaternary division included patterns in the
The classification formula was written as follows: interdigital section of the palm and had three additional
sections: part 1, part 2, and part 3.
(thenar) (thumb to index area)
(primary) This classification used a coding box, where each square
(hypothenar) (interdigital) contained the alpha or numeric symbol for each part of the
classification (Figure 5–2, p 5-17).

5–15
CHAPTER 5 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification

Radial loop #1 Hypothenar R1

Table 5–13
Radial loop #2 Hypothenar R2
Symbols for secondary classification. Radial loop #3 Hypothenar R3
Radial loop #4 Hypothenar R4
Pattern Location Symbol
Ulnar loop Thenar U
Arch Thenar A
Thumb-index U
Thumb-index None
Hypothenar U
Hypothenar A
Interdigital U
Interdigital a
Ulnar loop #1 Hypothenar U1
Exceptional arch Thenar E
Ulnar loop #2 Hypothenar U2
Thumb-index e
Ulnar loop #3 Hypothenar U3
Hypothenar E
Ulnar loop #4 Hypothenar U4
Interdigital e
Distal loop* Interdigital L
Joined arch Thenar J
Whorl Thenar W
Thumb-index J
Thumb-index w
Hypothenar J
Hypothenar W
Interdigital J
Interdigital w
Joined arch #1 Hypothenar only J1
Central pocket Thenar C
Joined arch #2 Hypothenar only J2
loop Thumb-index c
Vertical arch #1 Hypothenar only V1 Hypothenar C
Tented arch Thenar T Interdigital c
Thumb-index t
Double loop Thenar D
Hypothenar T
Thumb-index d
Interdigital t
Hypothenar D
Tented arch # 1 Hypothenar T1
Interdigital d
Tented arch # 2 Hypothenar T2
Accidental Thenar X
Radial loop Thenar R
Thumb-index x
Thumb-index r
Hypothenar X
Hypothenar R
Interdigital x
Interdigital r
* Distal loop only noted when there was another pattern
present in the interdigital area.

The primary division was formulated by the sum of set was devoid of patterns in all three areas. When a palmar
values, as determined by the presence of a pattern in the area contained more than one pattern, it was given a single
three palmar sections. The numeral 2 was given for the value, as if there was only one pattern in the area. When
presence of a pattern in the thenar. The numeral 3 was patterns were present in more than one palmar area, the
given for the presence of a pattern in the interdigital area. values were added together. The specific summed values
The numeral 4 was given for the presence of a pattern in also indicated which palmar area contained a pattern
the hypothenar. The value of 1 was recorded if the palm (Table 5–14).

5–16
 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification CHAPTER 5

FIGURE 5–2
Coding box for
the Liverpool
palmprint
classification.

Table 5–14 Table 5–15

Pattern indication from primary value. Symbols used in the Liverpool Palmprint
Classification System.
Primary Value Pattern Indication
Pattern Symbol
1 None
Whorl A (circular) A
2 Thenar only
Whorl B (elliptical) B
3 Interdigital only
Twinned loop TL
4 Hypothenar only
Lateral pocket loop LP
5 Thenar and interdigital only
Central pocket loop CP
6 Thenar and hypothenar only
Accidental/composite ACC
7 Interdigital and hypothenar only
Tented arch T
9 Patterns in all three areas
Loop core inward I
Loop core outward O
The secondary and subsecondary classification pertained
only to the patterns in the hypothenar. Table 5–15 details Loop core downward D
the patterns and representative symbols that were used in Loop core upward U
this classification system. If the hypothenar area contained
Loop core nutant K
more than one pattern, the coding box was separated by a
diagonal line from the lower left corner to the upper right Nondescript N
corner, with the left upper half of the box designated for Plain arch N
the pattern symbol of the pattern closest to the interdigital
No pattern
area and the lower right half designated for the pattern
symbol of the pattern closest to the wrist. High carpal delta H

Low carpal delta L

The secondary subclassification involved two distinct
subclassifications. For a single loop in the hypothenar,
the number of ridge characteristics in the core area was
recorded. For a hypothenar devoid of a pattern, the type of
delta was recorded (Alexander, 1973, pp 86–90).

5–17
CHAPTER 5 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification

The tertiary division pertained to the thenar area of the were defined by three concentric circles measuring 2, 4,
palm. If there were two patterns in this area, the coding and 6 cm from a center dot. Each area was numbered 1
box was again separated by a diagonal line from the lower through 4, with 4 marking the area outside the last concen-
left corner to the upper right corner, with the left upper half tric ring. A second measuring area, known as the 1–6 scale,
designated for the pattern symbol of the pattern closest to contained five lines, each 6 cm in length and 3 mm apart.
the interdigital area and the lower right half designated for The area between each line was numbered 1 through 6,
the pattern symbol closest to the wrist. with 1 representing the top of the scale. A third measuring
area, known as the 0–9 scale, looked like a ladder with the
Part 1 of the quaternary division pertained to the type(s) right leg missing. This scale contained 10 lines, each 1 cm
of pattern in the interdigital area of the palm. If more than in length and placed 4 mm apart. Each area between the
one pattern appeared in the interdigital area, the box was lines was numbered 0 to 9, with 0 representing the bottom
separated by three diagonal lines, with the upper left third of the scale.
dedicated for the pattern closest to the index finger and
the bottom right third dedicated for the pattern closest to The classification of palm prints under this system was
the little finger. based on the ridge pattern(s) in the three areas of the palm
and on the primary, secondary, and tertiary values. The
Part 2 of the quaternary division involved a predetermined measuring glass was used to determine some of the val-
numerical value indicating the position of the pattern in ues (Tables 5–17 to 5–19). The classification was recorded
relation to the fingers (Table 5–16). If more than one pat- in a table, with the hypothenar on the left, the interdigital
tern was present, the numerals were combined for a single in the middle, and the thenar on the right side of the table.
value. If a pattern was between the base of two fingers, For each area, the primary was recorded on the bottom,
the higher value was recorded. with the secondary above the primary, followed by the
tertiary on the top (Figure 5–3).
Part 3 of the quaternary division involved the recording of
ridge counts for tented arches or loops (inward core, out-
ward core, downward core loops) when only one of these 5.7 Computer Automation and
patterns was present in the interdigital area.
Print Classification
5.6.2.3 The Brogger Moller Palmprint Classification
System. The Brogger Moller palmprint classification system As federal, state, and local agencies received and retained
was formulated by Kaj Brogger Moller of the National Iden- more and more known exemplars, the need for a more
tification Bureau in Copenhagen, Denmark (Moenssens, efficient means of known-print individualization became
1971, p 199). As with the previous two systems, this clas- paramount. The identification service divisions of these
sification was based on the three defined areas of the palm agencies were tasked with the manual searching of
(i.e., hypothenar, thenar, and base areas). However, this suspect prints with known prints, often taking months to
system employed the use of a special measuring glass. This reach a decision of individualization or nonindividualization.
glass contained four separate measuring areas. The areas This lengthy turnaround time posed an obvious problem if
a suspect could not legally be detained pending an answer
from the identification division. The solution to this problem
Table 5–16 came with the invention of the computer.

Pattern value for part 2 of the quaternary division.

5.7.1 Birth of Computerized Classification
Position of Pattern Value
The first experiment with computer automation of known-
Under index finger 8 print cards took place at the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
Under middle finger 4 tion. In 1934, the FBI’s Identification Division was starting
to feel the effects of a large known-print database that
Under ring finger 2
was becoming increasingly difficult to search manually. The
Under little finger 1 FBI’s attempt at automation of known prints involved the

5–18
 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification CHAPTER 5

FIGURE 5–3
Brogger Moller
palmprint
classification
box.

Table 5–17
Classification for the hypothenar (Moenssens, 1971, pp 200–205).

Ridge Pattern Primary Secondary Tertiary

Using circle measurement,
dot at carpal delta and read
No design (carpal delta only) 1 None
circle where lowest ridge of
carpal area falls
Distal loop opening toward Using 0–9 scale, measure 8 = only when core has
interdigital, with core point- 2 distance between carpal distinct inclination toward
ing to ulnar side delta and core of loop carpal/radial area
Outward loop opening Using 0–9 scale, measure
toward ulnar side, with core 3 distance between carpal None
pointing toward thenar delta and core of loop
Using 0–9 scale, measure
distance between carpal
Whorls 4 delta and core (for double None
whorls, using core closest to
carpal delta)
Using 0–9 scale, measure
Double loops 5 None
distance between two cores
1 = arches
Arches 6 None
2 = tented arches
Loops opening toward wrist, Using 0–9 scale, measure
with core pointing toward 7 distance between core and None
ulnar side of palm delta above it
Composite patterns (any
pattern not conforming to 8 None None
above patterns)

5–19
CHAPTER 5 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification

Table 5–18
Classification for the interdigital (Moenssens, pp 206–207).

Ridge Pattern Primary Secondary Tertiary

2 = if loop is between index
and middle fingers
Using 1–6 scale, measure
3 = if loop is between
One loop in base area 1 height of loop (from deltas
middle and ring fingers
to core)
4 = if loop is between ring
and little fingers
1 = arch below index finger
2 = arch below middle finger Using 1–6 scale, measure
Tented arch 2 height of arch (from base of
3 = arch below ring finger arch to summit)
4 = arch below little finger
2 = if loop is between index
and middle fingers
Using 1–6 scale, measure
3 = if loop is between
Double loops 3 height of ulnar loop (from
middle and ring fingers
deltas to core)
4 = if loop is between ring
and little fingers
Two loops in same inter- 2 = if two-loop combination
digital area and tented is between index and
arches and loops in other middle fingers
areas 3 = if two-loop combination
4 is between middle and None
ring fingers
4 = if two-loop combination
is between ring and little
fingers
Plain arches 5 None None
One loop and one tented 2 = if loop is between index
arch and middle fingers
Using 1–6 scale, measure
3 = if loop is between
6 height of loop (from deltas
middle and ring fingers
to core)
4 = if loop is between ring
and little fingers
Three loops or combinations Three loops = height of loop
of three loops and tented between ring and middle None
arches fingers
7 Combination of three loops
and tented arches = height
of pattern located next to 2
ulnar side of palm
Long transversal loop below
8 None None
one or several digital deltas
One or several whorls 2 = if whorl is between
appear alone or in combina- index and middle fingers
tions with loops and tented 3 = if whorl is between
9 None
arches middle and ring fingers
4 = if whorl is between ring
and little fingers

5–20
 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification CHAPTER 5

Table 5–19
Classification for the thenar (Moenssens, pp 207-209).

Ridge Pattern Primary Secondary Tertiary

No pattern (or plain arch) 1 None None
1 = one proximal loop opens Using 0–9 scale, measure
toward radial side with distance between core and
core pointing to web of nearest delta
thumb or center of palm Using 0–9 scale, measure
2 = one proximal loop and distance between core of
Various patterns 2 one distal loop proximal loop and nearest
delta
3 = one proximal loop and
one whorl None
4 = one proximal loop and None
one double loop
Patterns with peculiar ridge
formations 3 None None

One distal loop opening Using 0–9 scale, measure

toward web of thumb with 4 distance between core and None
core pointing downward delta (not carpal delta)
1 = one single whorl None
2 = one whorl and one None
Three different patterns 5 distal loop
3 = two whorls None

1 = one double loop None

2 = one double loop and None
one distal loop
Four different patterns 6
3 = one double loop and None
one whorl
4 = two double loops None
Two collateral distal loops
both opening toward web of 7 None None
thumb

Two proximal loops, either

both opening toward carpal
area or one toward radial 8 None None
area and one toward carpal
area

Any pattern not discussed 9 None None

5–21
CHAPTER 5 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification

use of punch cards and sorting machines. Classifications

of known-print cards were keyed into the punch cards and Table 5–20
sorted according to the information contained on the card.
Card-sorting machines could then extract cards containing NCIC classification codes.
a specific punched classification, and, from this extraction,
Pattern NCIC Code
examiners could pull the corresponding known-print cards
for examination. Although this method was novel at the Ulnar loop ridge count
01–49
time, the FBI determined the experiment to be unsuccess- (actual ridge count)
ful, and it was abandoned (Stock, 1987, p 51). Radial loop ridge count
51–99
(actual ridge count plus 50)
5.7.2 National Crime Information Center Plain arch AA
Fingerprint Classification Tented arch TT
In 1965, the Federal Bureau of Investigation recognized Plain whorl, inner tracing PI
the country’s need for a centralized electronic criminal
Plain whorl, outer tracing PO
database. Within two years, the National Crime Information
Center (NCIC) was born, connecting 15 metropolitan and Plain whorl, meet tracing PM
state computers with the FBI’s NCIC central computer. By Central pocket whorl, inner tracing CI
1971, all states and the District of Columbia were con-
Central pocket whorl, outer tracing CO
nected to NCIC.
Central pocket whorl, meet tracing CM
The NCIC is made up of millions of records that have been
Double loop whorl, inner tracing dI
sorted into separate databases. Criminal justice agencies
can search these databases for information. One part of Double loop whorl, outer tracing dO
the NCIC database is the NCIC fingerprint classification. Double loop whorl, meet tracing dM
This alphanumeric classification system is pattern-specific
Accidental whorl, inner tracing XI
to each individual finger and, unlike the Henry classification
system, does not involve the combination of fingers. Like Accidental whorl, outer tracing XO
the Henry system, however, NCIC classification can assist Accidental whorl, meet tracing XM
only in eliminating or narrowing the search of records for
Missing or amputated finger XX
the potential suspect.
Complete scarring or mutilation SR
The NCIC system consists of a 20-character code, in which
each finger—beginning with the right thumb and ending
effort was put forth by both local agencies and the Federal
with the left little finger—is represented by two characters
Bureau of Investigation to establish a computer program to
(Table 5–20). For example, a person with all plain arches,
permanently assist with fingerprint automation.
except tented arches in the index fingers, would have an
NCIC classification code of AATTAAAAAAAATTAAAAAA.
5.7.4 Automation Research in New York
5.7.3 First Attempt by FBI To Create an In 1965, the New York State Information and Identification
Automated System System began research into the use of minutiae to classify
fingerprints (Stock, 1987, p 54). The endeavor began with
In the 1950s, the first commercially available computer
the manual recording of enlarged fingerprint minutiae on
came on the market and, by the 1960s, computers had
clear overlays and progressed to the use of a magnified
reached the law enforcement community (Ruggles et al.,
rear projection system. The extracted minutiae data was
1994, p 214). Because of previous experience in the use of
then used for the programming of minutiae extraction soft-
computer-aided known-print individualization and the con-
ware. Shortly after the state contracted with a firm for the
tinued growth of the fingerprint card databases, an earnest
development of a minutiae encoding system, budgetary
restraints caused the program to be eliminated.

5–22
 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification CHAPTER 5

5.7.5 The Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Automated System Table 5–21
In 1970, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) initi- AFIS pattern classifications (CJIS, p 2).
ated an automated classification system that used video
images of known-print cards. These video images were Description AFIS Code
filed according to the RCMP Henry classification. When a Arch AU
card was submitted for a known-print search, it was classi-
Left-slant loop LS
fied and that classification was then searched in the video
file. The computer would generate a video file containing all Right-slant loop RS
the possible matching known-print cards. This file was then Whorl WU
compared on screen with the known print in question.
Amputation XX

5.7.6 Automation Research at the FBI Complete scar SR

Unable to classify UC
In 1963, the FBI reinitiated its research into the complete
automation of its criminal known-print repository. At Unable to print UP
this time, all attention was directed toward known-print
automation and solving the Identification Division’s backlog
Thus, the computer scientists created a system whereby
pertaining to its known-print individualization service.
numbers could be compared. Today, when a suspect’s
In the mid-1960s, initial research confirmed the feasibility known-print card is submitted to an automated fingerprint
of the project and, by the late 1960s, Cornell Laboratories identification system, an algorithm compares one math-
was chosen to build a prototype automatic fingerprint ematical map to another. The conclusion of the comparison
reader (Stock, 1987, p 55). In 1972, this prototype, known is a list of candidates with the highest matching algorithmic
as AIDS (Automated Identification System), was installed in number.
the Identification Division in Washington, DC.
5.7.7 Current Developments in
The actual classification of fingerprints went through three
Friction Ridge Automation
different phases during program development. The first
phase attempted to emulate the Henry classification sys- The computer software technology that resulted from the
tem’s pattern definitions. It was assumed that if a trained research at the Federal Bureau of Investigation has led
fingerprint technician could easily determine a pattern type to numerous companies’ creation of software packages
by looking at computer-generated ridge flow, so could the for the automation of friction ridge impressions. These
computer. However, this proved to be time-consuming, software packages are independent of the Federal Bureau
even for the computer, and, in the second phase, the of Investigation and are available for purchase by any insti-
Henry system was replaced with the classification code tution. However, with the inception of the FBI’s national
from NCIC. Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System
(IAFIS) in 1999 came mandated standards regarding the
In the early 1980s, the third and final phase of automatic transmission of digital information incorporated into IAFIS
fingerprint classification was instituted. The system, called (Criminal Justice Information Services, 1999; Jain and
AFIS (Automated Fingerprint Identification System), was Pankanti, 2001).
based solely on the computerized extraction of minutiae.
This extraction, in effect, creates mathematical maps of 5.7.8 Automated Palmprint
each impression in a finger block and of the card as a
Classification Systems
whole. Each map contains the computer-determined pat-
tern type (Table 5–21) and minutiae location and direction. Once again, history is repeating itself. This time it is the
need for an automated palmprint identification system
(APIS). In response, the biometric software community is

5–23
CHAPTER 5 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification

aggressively pursuing solutions. Numerous companies are Bridges, B. C. Practical Fingerprinting; Funk and Wagnalls:
providing software packages containing palmprint individu- New York, 1963.
alization systems. Integral to the use of a palmprint system
Chatterjee, S. K. Finger, Palm and Sole Prints; Artine Press:
is the digital storage of known palmprint cards.
Calcutta, India, 1953.
The FBI is currently converting all of its inked palmprint
Criminal Justice Information Services, Federal Bureau of
cards to a digital format in anticipation of integrating an
Investigation. CJIS Informational Letter; U.S. Department
APIS function into IAFIS.
of Justice, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington,
DC, August 20, 1999.
5.8 Conclusion Dilworth, D., Ed. Identification Wanted: Development of
In any scientific field, the combination of mental acuity the American Criminal Identification System 1893-1943;
and technological innovation always creates the desire for International Association of Chiefs of Police: Gaithersburg,
bigger and better things. This is certainly true of friction MD, 1977.
ridge classification systems. As populations grew, the need
Faulds, H. On the Skin—Furrows of the Hand. Nature 1880,
for a system that was not dependent upon the limited
22 (October 28), 605.
workforce of the law enforcement community became
increasingly important. Rudimentary systems grew into Faulds, H. Guide to Finger-Print Identification; Wood,
advanced systems that now provide the criminal justice Mitchell & Co. Ltd.: Hanley, Stoke-On-Trent, U.K., 1905.
community with a workable solution to the problem of
identifying recidivists. Advancements in computer micro- Faulds, H. Dactylography or the Study of Finger-Prints;
processors and programming, and the marriage of friction Milner and Company: Halifax, London, 1912.
ridge impressions and computers, have led the fingerprint
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Classification of Footprints;
community to the current day, where a known-print card
U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Government Printing
can be searched in minutes.
Office: Washington DC, 1985. (Revised and reprinted from
Law Enforcement Bulletin, September 1971.)

5.9 Reviewers Galton, F. Finger Prints; MacMillan: New York, 1892.

The reviewers critiquing this chapter were Mike Campbell, Galton, F. Human Variety. Journal of the Anthrological
Michael Perkins, Charles Richardson, and Lyla A. Thompson. Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 1889, 18, 401–419.

Herschel, W. J. Skin Furrows of the Hand. Nature 1880, 23

5.10 References (578), 76.

Alexander, H. Classifying Palmprints: A Complete System Jain, A.; Pankanti, S. Automated Fingerprint Identification
of Coding, Filing, and Searching Palmprints; Charles C and Imaging Systems, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: New York, 2001.
Thomas: Springfield, IL, 1973.
Jay, V. The Extraordinary Career of Dr. Purkinje. Archives
Ashbaugh, D. R. Quantitative-Qualitative Friction Ridge of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 2000, 124 (5),
Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Ridge- 662–663.
ology; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 1999.
McGinnis, P. D. American System of Fingerprint Classifica-
Baird, A. J. System Used by the Western Australian Police tion; New York State Department of Correction Division of
Force for the Classification and Filing of Palmprints; 1959 Identification: New York, 1963.
(unpublished).
Moenssens, A. A. Fingerprint Techniques; Chilton Book
Beavan, C. Fingerprints: The Origins of Crime Detection Company: Philadelphia, 1971.
and the Murder Case that Launched Forensic Science;
Rhodes, H. Alphonse Bertillon: Father of Scientific
Hyperion: New York, 2001.
Detection; Abelard-Schuman: London, 1956.

5–24
 Systems of Friction Ridge Classification CHAPTER 5

Rodriguez, J. South Atlantic Crossing: Fingerprints,

5.11 Additional Information
Science, and the State in Turn-of-the-Century Argentina.
The American Historical Review, April 2004 [Online], 109.2, Cherrill, F. R. The Finger Print System at Scotland Yard: A
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/109.2/ Practical Treatise on Finger Print Identification for the Use
rodriguez.html (accessed June 23, 2006). of Students and Experts and a Guide for Investigators
when Dealing with Imprints Left at the Scenes of Crime;
Ruggles, T.; Thieme, S.; Elman, D. Automated Fingerprint
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office: London, 1954.
Identification Systems: North American Morpho System. In
Advances in Fingerprint Technology; Gaensslen, R. E., Lee, Faulds, H. A Manual of Practical Dactylography: A Work for
H., Eds.; CRC Press: New York, 1994; pp 212–226. the Use of Students of the Finger-Print Method of Identifi-
cation; The Police Review: London, 1923.
Russell, M. Print Pioneer Identified at Last. The Herald,
2004. Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Science of Finger-
prints; U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Government
Stock, R. M. An Historical Overview of Automated Finger-
Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1979.
print Identification Systems. Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Government Printing Herschel, W. J. The Origin of Finger-Printing; Oxford Univer-
Office: Quantico, VA, 1987; pp 51–60. sity Press: London, 1916.

Henry, E. R. Classification and Uses of Fingerprints,

1st ed.; Routledge & Sons: London, 1900.

Purkinje, J. E. Commentatio de Examine Physiologico

Organi Visus et Systematis Cutanei (A Commentary on the
Physiological Examination of the Organs of Vision and the
Cutaneous System); Vratisaviae Typis Universitatis: Breslau,
Prussia, 1823.

Vucetich, J. Dactiloscopía Comparada (Comparative Finger-

printing): The New Argentine System; 1904. (Translation for
FBI Laboratories by Patrick J. Phelan, August 27, 1954.)

Wentworth, B.; Wilder, H. H. Personal Identification;

Gorham Press: Boston, 1918.

5–25