J. Anat. (2001) 199, pp.

577–584, with 5 figures Printed in the United Kingdom 577

The relationship of the number of Meissner’s corpuscles to

dermatoglyphic characters and finger size

Y V O N N E K . D I L L O N, J U L I E H A Y N E S A N D M A C I E J H E N N E B E R G

Department of Anatomical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Australia

(Accepted 26 June 2001)


This study investigated the relationships between the density of Meissner’s corpuscles and the
dermatoglyphic characteristics of human fingers. Dermatoglyphic prints and tissue samples were collected
from the index (II) and ring (IV) fingers of 28 cadavers from the Medical School, University of Adelaide.
Pattern types, pattern intensity, total ridge count and ridge breadth, were determined for each sample and
the density of Meissner’s corpuscles established by recording the mean number of Meissner’s corpuscles
underlying a 10 mm long line on the skin surface. No relationship was found between the density of
Meissner’s corpuscles and pattern type, pattern intensity or total ridge count. Negative correlations were
found for the density of Meissner’s corpuscles with both ridge width and size of fingers. Males were found
to have significantly larger fingers, larger ridge breadth, and a lower density of Meissner’s corpuscles per
10 mm compared with females. However, there was no difference between the total number of Meissner’s
corpuscles per finger in males and females. No significant differences were found in either the density of
Meissner’s corpuscles between antimeres or between the index and ring fingers. These results suggest that for
both the left and right hand in males and females, there is a similar number of Meissner’s corpuscles for
both the index and ring fingers.

Key words : Mechanoreceptors ; fingerprints ; handedness ; histology ; cadavers.

Fe! re! (1895, 1896) found tactile acuity was better


Gripping and tactile sensitivity are 2 major functions
believed to be associated with the epidermal ridges on
the palmar surface of the fingers (Cummins & Midlo,
1943). However, most studies in dermatoglyphics
have focused on dermatoglyphic variables within and
between various populations across the world (White,
1979 ; Crawford & Duggirala, 1992 ; Sirajuddin et al.
1994 ; Reddy & Chopra, 1999) or between sexes
(Esteban & Moral, 1993 ; Krishnan & Reddy, 1994 ;
Acree, 1999). Links between dermatoglyphics and
disease or congenital abnormalities have also been
explored (Minkov, 1982 ; Singh et al. 1983 ; Rajangam
et al. 1995 ; Fananas et al. 1996 ; Gutierrez et al. 1998 ;
Than et al. 1998 ; Brill and Stier, 1999). Despite this
extensive research in dermatoglyphics, the relation-
ships between dermatoglyphic variables and tactile
sensitivity have been neglected except for studies by
Fe! re! (1895, 1896) and Loesch & Martin (1984).
when the points of a 2-point discrimination test were
perpendicular, not parallel, to the epidermal ridges of
the fingertips. Loesch & Martin (1984) showed that
various dermatoglyphic patterns present on the ring
finger (IV digit) differed in their sensitivity to a
moving stimulus. The best tactile sensitivity was
recorded for a loop pattern.
Meissner’s corpuscles, Merkel cells, Pacinian cor-
puscles, and Ruffini’s corpuscles are all forms of
mechanoreceptors that contribute to sensations of
touch (Gardner et al. 2000). The first 2 mechano-
receptors have small receptive fields and are located
superficially to Pacinian and Ruffini’s corpuscles in
the skin. They are found at the dermal–epidermal
junction where they have a major role in providing
information about the shape, size and texture of
objects and 2-point discrimination (Gardner et al.
2000). Meissner’s corpuscles were selected as the focus
of this study because they are primarily located in

Correspondence to Dr Julie Haynes, Department of Anatomical Sciences, Adelaide University, South Australia, 5005, Australia. Fax :
j618 08 8303 4398 ; e-mail : julie.haynes!adelaide.edu.au
578 Y. K. Dillon and others
ridged skin whereas Merkel cells are also concentrated
in other areas, e.g. lips, tongue (Lacour et al. 1991).
The concentration of Meissner’s corpuscles in the
fingertips and their connections to the epidermal layer
prompted speculation that the locations of Meissner’s
corpuscles may be influenced by the complexities of
grooves and ridges at the dermal-epidermal interface.
Additionally, Meissner’s corpuscles and not Merkel’s
cells were investigated because the former can be
easily and consistently detected in tissue samples
collected up to 60 h post-mortem whereas the immuno-
staining or electron microscopic techniques needed
for the positive identification of Merkel cells require
more stringent fixation.
Meissner’s corpuscles are encapsulated, ovoid struc-
tures ranging from 30 to 75 µm in width (Caruso et al.
1994) and " 150 µm in length (Iggo & Andres, 1982).
Each consists of several nerve fibres that mingle with
modified Schwann cells to give the characteristic
stacked appearance of a Meissner’s corpuscle (Cauna
& Ross, 1960). Collagen fibrils extend from the
capsule to hemidesmosomes on the basal keratino-
cytes of the epidermis and relay pressure on the
epidermis to Meissner’s corpuscles (Iggo & Andres,
1982).
Meissner’s corpuscles are almost exclusively found
in the ridged skin of the palms and soles with the
highest concentrations in the fingertips (Caruso et al.
1994) which also have the best tactile acuity, implying
a relationship between Meissner’s corpuscles and
touch sensitivity. Further evidence supporting this
relationship is the parallelism that has been found
between the decrease in tactile sensitivity and the
reduction of the number of Meissner’s corpuscles with
age (Schimrigk & Ruttinger, 1980 ; Thornbury &
Mistretta, 1981).
The tactile sensitivity of the digits varies. The index
finger is perceived to be the most sensitive digit and
has the best 2-point discriminative capacity (Martin &
Jessell, 1991) and the largest somatosensory rep-
resentation in the cerebral cortex (Gardner & Kandel,
2000). Furthermore, Weinstein (1968) found the right
index and left thumb had better 2-point discrimination
than the same contralateral digits. Superior sensitivity
has also been shown in the non-dominant hand of
adults (Ghent, 1961). Although these functional
comparisons have been made, no study has compared
the microscopic structure of the digits, in particular,
the density of Meissner’s corpuscles with dermato-
glyphic patterns. Hence the aims of this study were to
investigate the relationships between the density of
Meissner’s corpuscles and dermatoglyphic variables,
finger size and differences in the density of Meissner’s
corpuscles between index and ring fingers, handed-
ness, and sex. The index finger was used in the study
as it is believed to be the most sensitive. The ring
finger was selected because it is the only digit for
which data have been published with regard to
dermatoglyphic patterns and tactile sensitivity
(Loesch & Martin, 1984).
  
Subjects
The fingerprints and tissue specimens used in this
study were collected from 28 cadavers bequeathed to
the Department of Anatomical Sciences, Medical
School, University of Adelaide. All cadavers were
over the age of 60 y. The bodies were donated to the
University of Adelaide through the body donor
program which operates under the strict guidelines of
the Transplantation and Anatomy Act, South
Australian Government, 1983 and the research was
conducted in accordance with the provisions specified
in the Act. Fingerprinting and collection of the
samples were carried out as soon as the bodies were
received before they were embalmed. In most cases,
samples were collected within 36 h after death. Data
were collected from the index and ring fingers of both
hands from each cadaver where possible.
Fingerprinting
Standard ink fingerprinting methods were used for
obtaining fingerprints from the index and ring finger
of both hands from each cadaver and then the pattern
intensity, ridge count and ridge breadth were de-
termined for each digit (Penrose, 1968). Pattern
intensity was measured by the number of triradii
present. Hence arches had a pattern intensity of 0,
loops and tented arches 1, and whorls, double loops
and central pocket loops 2.
Ridge breadth was measured by counting the
number of ridges that intersected a 10 mm long line
running perpendicular to the direction of the ridges.
The actual ridge breadth was an inverse of this
number multiplied by 10.
Histological specimens
A rectangular sample of skin, " 2–3 mm wide, 20 mm
long and 5 mm deep was cut from each finger. The
tissue sample passed through the centre of the
dermatoglyphic pattern. The specimens were fixed in
10 % buffered formalin and embedded in paraffin
wax. Ten longitudinal sections (10 µm in thickness
 Meissner’s corpuscles, dermatoglyphics and finger size 579

and at least 100 µm apart) were cut from each were significant differences between pattern intensity
specimen, perpendicular to the surface of the skin, and and the density of Meissner’s corpuscles. Significance
stained with van Gieson’s technique (Drury & was taken for all analyses at P 0n05.
Wallington, 1980).
Meissner’s corpuscles were counted and recorded

for each section and the length of the sections (surface
of skin) measured so that a relative Meissner’s The age of the individuals ranged from 63 to 92 y.
corpuscle count per 10 mm could be determined and There was no significant correlation between the age
comparisons made between sections. of the individuals and the density of the Meissner’s
The density of Meissner’s corpuscles has been corpuscles (P
0n05).
shown to decrease with age until about 60 when Table 1 shows the density of Meissner’s corpuscles
further reduction is minimal (Schimrigk & Ruttinger, for both index and ring fingers for males and females.
1980). In order to ensure that different densities of A 2-sample t test assuming unequal variances for
Meissner’s corpuscles between individuals were re- index and ring fingers showed no significant difference
lated to dermatoglyphic and anthropometric variables between fingers in either sex.
only, the homogeneity of the sample was investigated Table 2 shows the density of Meissner’s corpuscles
by examining the relationship between the density of for the dominant and non-dominant hand. The
Meissner’s corpuscles and age. dominant hand had a lower average density of
Meissner’s corpuscle than the non-dominant hand but
a 2-sample t test assuming unequal variances showed
Measuring finger size and handedness
that the results were not significant.
The width of the finger was determined by measuring Table 3 shows the density of Meissner’s corpuscles
the width of the distal interphalangeal joint for the various dermatoglyphic pattern intensities.
(Malinowski & Bozilow, 1997). The length of the Analysis of variance found no significant difference
finger pad was taken by measuring the distance between the densities of Meissner’s corpuscles and the
between the very tip of the finger and the flexion pattern intensities in either sex.
crease at the distal interphalangeal joint (Murai et al. There was no significant correlation either in males
1997). The size of the finger pad (finger size) was then or in females between total ridge count and the
determined by averaging the width and length. This density of Meissner’s corpuscles (P
0n05). In males
method provided a value for the size of the finger so (n l 64), the value of Pearson’s r showed a significant
that comparisons between fingers could be made. It
was based on a technique used previously to measure
Table 1. The number of Meissner’s corpuscles per 10 mm in
cranial size (Henneberg, 1988). In comparing male
relation to the index and ring fingers
and female finger size, the length and the rectangular
area (lengthiwidth) were also used. Index finger Ring finger
Handedness was determined by measuring the Meissner’s
corpuscles n x .. n x ..
biepicondylar width from the left and right arms.
Based on the analysis of previously unpublished data Males 36 2n42 1n09 35 2n51 1n27
collected by Deborah Constant, Department of Females 18 3n05 1n36 18 3n10 1n35
Anatomy and Cell Biology, University of Cape Town, Total 54 2n63 1n21 53 2n71 1n31
the larger width corresponds to the dominant hand
n, Sample size ; x, mean ; .., standard deviation.
(Dillon, 2000).

Table 2. Density of Meissner’s corpuscles for the dominant

Statistics
and non-dominant hand of females and males
Pearson’s moment-product correlation was used to
Dominant hand Non-dominant hand
determine whether there was a relationship between Meissner’s
the density of Meissner’s corpuscles and age, relative corpuscles n x .. n x ..
finger size, ridge breadth and ridge count. Student’s t
tests were employed to test if there were significant Males 14 2n56 1n20 14 2n91 1n44
Females 12 3n04 1n51 12 3n33 1n34
differences between fingers, handedness and sex in Total 26 2n78 1n35 26 3n10 1n38
relation to the density of Meissner’s corpuscles.
Analysis of variance was used to determine if there n, Sample size ; x, mean ; .., standard deviation.
580 Y. K. Dillon and others

Table 3. Number of Meissner’s corpuscles per 10 mm for dermatoglyphic pattern intensities 0, 1, and 2

Arches, Loops, tented arches, Whorls, double loops, etc.,

intensity 0 intensity 1 intensity 2

Meissner’s corpuscles n x .. n x .. n x ..

Males 3 1n50 0n13 26 2n57 1n26 41 2n43 1n13

Females Not present 20 2n77 0n95 13 3n38 1n43
Total 3 1n50 0n13 46 2n66 1n13 54 2n66 1n26

n, Sample size ; x, mean ; .., standard deviation.

Fig. 1. Density of Meissner’s corpuscles\10 mm plotted against ridge breadth in males (n l 64).

Fig. 2. The scatter plot shows the density of Meissner’s corpuscles\10 mm plotted against ridge breadth in females (n l 30).

negative correlation between the ridge breadth and
the density of Meissner’s corpuscles (P 0n05)
(Fig. 1). As ridge breadth increases, the density of
Meissner’s corpuscles decreases. In females (n l 30)
(Fig. 2) a negative correlation was found, but it was
not significant, possibly due to a small sample size.
A positive correlation between finger size and ridge
breadth was found in both males and females,
indicating that a larger finger has wider ridges (Fig. 3).
Females had significantly smaller fingers than males
(tm l 11n51, P 0n01) and significantly greater density
of Meissner’s corpuscles (tm l 2n34, P 0n05)
 Meissner’s corpuscles, dermatoglyphics and finger size 581

Fig. 3. Finger size plotted against ridge breadth for males (diamonds) and females (squares).

Table 4. Finger size and Meissner’s corpuscles per 10 mm for as finger size increases, the density of Meissner’s
males and females corpuscles decreases. In females a similar negative
correlation exists (Fig. 5) but it is not significant.
Males Females
Further comparisons were made of the density of
n x .. n x .. Meissner’s corpuscles per 10 mm between males and
females after the influence of the finger size had been
Finger size 71 21n89 1n41 32 18n80 1n19
Meissner’s 71 2n46 1n17 36 3n08 1n33
eliminated by multiplying the density of Meissner’s
corpuscles corpuscles by the finger size (Table 5). Three tests
were conducted, using 3 different methods of
n, Sample size ; x, mean ; .., standard deviation. measuring finger size. These were, the length of the
finger, the module method (the average of width and
(Table 4). There is a significant negative correlation length), and the estimated area of the finger
(P 0n05) between the size of the finger in males and (widthilength). Two-sample t tests on these data
the density of Meissner’s corpuscles (Fig. 4). That is, showed that there were no differences in the number

Fig. 4. The inverse significant correlation in males between the size of the finger and the number of Meissner’s corpuscles\10 mm.
582 Y. K. Dillon and others

Fig. 5. Scatter plot showing the density of Meissner’s corpuscles\10 mm plotted against the finger size in females.

Table 5. The total number of Meissner’s corpuscles per finger numbers of Meissner’s corpuscles and age in this
calculated in various ways sample supports these earlier findings. Due to the
advanced age of the cadavers, the mean value for the
Males Females
Finger size density of Meissner’s corpuscles per 10 mm would, of
expressed as : n x .. n x .. course, be lower than in the general population.
In the current study, the result of a similar density
Length 71 66n07 29n89 32 70n53 31n92
Module method 71 53n42 24n47 32 54n88 23n58
of Meissner’s corpuscles in the index and ring fingers
Area 71 1079n26 490n67 32 940n34 384n87 does not correlate with the findings that the index
finger has superior 2-point discrimination over the
n, Sample size ; x, mean ; .., standard deviation. ring finger (Weinstein, 1968). Perhaps the sample size
was too small or other mechanoreceptors, as suggested
of Meissner’s corpuscles between males and females by Bruce & Sinclair (1980), contribute to 2-point
for all three tests (length of finger : tm l 0n80, P
0n05 ; discrimination. It is also possible that cortical pro-
module method : tm l 0n29, P
0n05 ; area of finger : cessing of sensory input is better for the index finger.
tm l 1n37, P
0n05). The similarity of the density of the Meissner’s
corpuscles in the index and ring fingers allowed data
for the other investigations to be pooled.

Although the relationship between the density of
Collection of some data was limited due to some Meissner’s corpuscles and handedness was not
individuals having very smooth skin on their fingertips significant, the higher density of Meissner’s corpuscles
which made finger printing impossible. One cadaver found in the non-dominant hand in both sexes,
had no Meissner’s corpuscles present. This lack of supports the finding by Ghent (1961) that the non-
Meissner’s corpuscles is similar to that from the study dominant hand in adults is more sensitive than the
by Schimrigk & Ruttinger (1980) who came across 2 dominant hand. Higher tactile sensitivity in the non-
subjects out of 30 who had no trace of Meissner’s dominant hand has also been found to be unrelated to
corpuscles. No explanation was given for these skin thickness and callus formation (Weinstein &
absences. Sersen, 1961). A larger sample size and a more
Several studies have shown that the density of accurate technique for measuring handedness (e.g.
Meissner’s corpuscles decreases with age but from live subjects) may yield a significant finding of a
60 y onwards, the decrease levels out (Schimrigk & greater density of Meissner’s corpuscles in the non-
Ruttinger, 1980 ; Thornbury & Mistretta, 1981 ; dominant hand.
Darian-Smith, 1984). The age range of the cadavers in The finding of no significant relationship between
the present study was 63–92 y and the lack of a Meissner’s corpuscles and dermatoglyphic patterns or
significant correlation found between decreasing ridge counts suggests that the arrangement of the
 Meissner’s corpuscles, dermatoglyphics and finger size
ridges and grooves is inconsequential to tactile acuity.
However, Loesch & Martin (1984) claimed that
greater sensitivity is associated with loops. This
greater sensitivity may relate to other mechano-
receptors besides Meissner’s corpuscles or the actual
arrangement of the ridges into the loop pattern.
Other sensory nerve endings besides Meissner’s
corpuscles may have varying distributions in the
different finger print patterns and hence account for
the greater sensitivity found by Loesch & Martin
(1984) in loops. For example, it has been shown that
there is a high density of Merkel cells present in the
pads of the finger (Lacour et al. 1991) and a suggestion
is made that perhaps the overlying epidermal ridges
influence the distribution of the Merkel cells.
If the underlying nerve receptors are not the cause
for the increased tactile sensitivity in loops, then
perhaps the difference in tactile sensitivity can be
attributed to the actual shape of the pattern. Work by
Fe! re! (1895, 1896) indicated that 2-point discrimi-
nation is better when the points are placed transversely
to the direction of the ridges. However, a later study
(Craig, 1999) found that the orientation of tactile
stimuli has no effect on the reception of these stimuli.
There are several trends that are apparent from the
study of the relationship between the density of
Meissner’s corpuscles and ridge breadth, finger size
and sex. The current study reinforces the previously
noted positive correlation between ridge breadth and
finger size (Budnik, 1991). The ridge breadth and
finger size were found to be inversely proportional to
the density of Meissner’s corpuscles. Thus, a large
finger will usually have large ridge widths and a low
density of Meissner’s corpuscles. This finding agrees
with the suggestion by Bolton et al. (1966) that there
is no difference in the total number of Meissner’s
corpuscles between small and large fingers. In the
current study, no differences were found between the
total number of Meissner’s corpuscles in either sex.
However, females were found to have smaller fingers
than males and therefore a greater density of
Meissner’s corpuscles which supports previous
findings (Bolton et al. 1966) and perhaps may account
for the higher tactile sensitivity seen in females (Ghent,
1961).
In summary, no significant correlations were found
between dermatoglyphic variables and the density of
Meissner’s corpuscles with the exception of ridge
breadth in males where a weak inverse correlation was
present. However, this is probably linked to the
relationship between finger size and ridge breadth. No
sexual dimorphism in the number of Meissner’s
corpuscles irrespective of finger size was found. There
583
were no significant differences between left and right
hands and fingers.
              
The authors wish to thank Mr Wesley Fisk, Mr Stelios
Michas and Mrs Gail Hermanis, Department of
Anatomical Sciences, Adelaide University, for their
technical advice and assistance. The public support
for the body donor program at the Adelaide Uni-
versity is also gratefully acknowledged for making the
study possible.

ACREE MA (1999) Is there a gender difference in finger print ridge
density? Forensic Science International 102, 34–44.
BOLTON CF, WINKELMANN RK, DYCK PJ (1966) A
quantitative study of Meissner’s corpuscles in man. Neurology 16,
1–9.
BRILL T, STIER S (1999) Hand parameter differences between
psychiatric patients and normal controls : a preliminary evalu-
ation. Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences 36,
105–114.
BRUCE MF, SINCLAIR DC (1980) The relationship between
tactile thresholds and histology in the human finger. Journal of
Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 43, 235–242.
BUDNIK A (1991) Heritability of Dermatoglyphic Traits of
Man—An Attempt at a New Methodical Approach. Poznan :
Adam Mickiewicz University Press.
CARUSO G, NOLANO M, LULLO F, CRISCI C, NILSSON J,
MASSINI R (1994) Median nerve sensory responses evoked by
tactile stimulation of the finger proximal and distal phalanx in
normal subjects. Muscle and Nerve 17, 269–275.
CAUNA N, ROSS LL (1960) The fine structure of Meissner’s
touch corpuscles of human fingers. Journal of Biophysical
Cytology 8, 467–482.
CRAIG J (1999) Grating orientation as a measure of tactile spatial
acuity. Somatosensory and Motor Research 16, 197–206.
CRAWFORD MH, DUGGIRALA AR (1992) Digital dermato-
glyphic patterns of Eskimo and Amerindian populations :
relationships between geographic, dermatoglyphic, genetic and
linguistic distances. Human Biology 64, 683–704.
CUMMINS H, MIDLO C (1943) Finger Prints, Palms and Soles :
An Introduction to Dermatoglyphics. New York : Dover Publi-
cations.
DARIAN-SMITH I (1984) The sense of touch : performance and
peripheral neural processes. In Handbook of Physiology, section
1 : The Nervous System. American Physiological Society.
DILLON Y (2000) Meissner’s corpuscles and their relationship with
dermatoglyphic and anthropometric variables. Unpublished
honours thesis, The University of Adelaide.
DRURY RAB, WALLINGTON EA (1980) Carleton’s Histological
Technique. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
ESTEBAN E, MORAL P (1993) Finger dermatoglyphics in a
Mediterranean population (Murcia, Spain) ; pattern types and
pattern intensity index. Anthropologischer Anzeiger 51, 159–167.
FANANAS L, VAN OS J, HOYOS C, MCGRATH J, MELLOR
C, MURRAY R (1996) Dermatoglyphic a-b ridge count as a
possible marker for developmental disturbance in schizophrenia :
replication in two samples. Schizophrenia Research 20, 307–314.
FE; RE; C (1895) Note sur la sensibilite! de la pulpe des doigts. SocieT teT
de Biologie (Paris) 47, 657–660.
FE; RE; C (1896) Des empreintes digitales dans l’e! tude des fonctions
de la main. SocieT teT de Biologie (Paris) 48, 1114–1117.
584 Y. K. Dillon and others
GARDNER EP, KANDEL ER (2000) Touch. In Principles of
Neural Science, 4th edn (ed. Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessell
TM), pp. 451–471. New York : McGraw-Hill.
GARDNER EP, MARTIN JH, JESSELL TM (2000) The bodily
senses. In Principles of Neural Science, 4th edn (ed. Kandel ER,
Schwartz JH, Jessell TM), pp. 430–450. New York : McGraw-
Hill.
GHENT L (1961) Developmental changes in tactual thresholds on
dominant and nondominant sides. Journal of Comparative and
Physiological Psychology 54, 670–673.
GUTIERREZ B, VAN OS J, VALLES V, GUILLAMAT R,
CAMPILLO M, FANANAS L (1998) Congenital dermato-
glyphic malformations in the severe bipolar disorder. Psychiatry
Research 78, 133–140.
HENNEBERG M (1988) Decrease of human skull size in the
holocene. Human Biology 60, 395–405.
IGGO A, ANDRES KH (1982) Morphology of cutaneous
receptors. Annual Review of Neuroscience 5, 1–31.
KRISHNAN T, REDDY BM (1994) Geographic and ethnic
variability of finger ridge-counts : biplots of male and female
Indian samples. Annals of Human Biology 21, 155–169.
LACOUR JP, DUBOIS D, PISANI A, ORTONNE JP (1991)
Anatomical mapping of Merkel cells in normal human adult
epidermis. British Journal of Dermatology 125, 535–542.
LOESCH DZ, MARTIN NG (1984) Finger ridge patterns and
tactile sensitivity. Annals of Human Biology 11, 113–124.
MALINOWSKI AJ, BOZILOW W (1997) Podstawy Antro-
pometrii. Warsaw : Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
MARTIN JH, JESSELL TM (1991) Modality coding in the
somatic sensory system. In Principles of Neural Science, 3rd edn
(ed. Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessell TM), pp. 341–352.
Norwalk, CT : Appleton & Lange.
MINKOV D (1982) Dermatoglyphics in psoriasis patients. Folia
Medica (Plovdiv) 24, 43–45.
MURAI M, LAU H, PEREIRA BP, PHO RWH (1997) A cadaver
study on volume and surface area of the fingertip. Journal of
Hand Surgery 22, 935–941.
PENROSE LS (1968) Memorandum on dermatoglyphic nomencla-
ture. Birth Defects : Original Article Series 4, 1–12.
RAJANGAM S, JANAKIRAM S, THOMAS IM (1995) Dermato-
glyphics in Down’s syndrome. Journal of the Indian Medical
Association 93, 10–13.
REDDY BM, CHOPRA UP (1999) Biological affinities between
migrant and parental populations of fishermen on the east coast
of India. Human Biology 71, 803–822.
SCHIMRIGK K, RUTTINGER H (1980) The touch corpuscles of
the plantar surface of the big toe : histological and histometrical
investigations with respect to age. European Neulology 19, 49–60.
SINGH PK, PANDEY SS, SINGH G (1983) Dermatoglyphics in
psoriasis. Indian Journal of Dermatology 28, 47–55.
SIRAJUDDIN SM, DUGGIRALA R, CRAWFORD MH (1994)
Population structure of the Chenchu and other South Indian
tribal groups : relationships between genetic, anthropometric,
dermatoglyphic, geographic and linguistic distances. Human
Biology 66, 865–884.
THAN M, MYAT KA, KHADIJAH S, JAMALUDIN N, ISA
MN (1998) Dermatoglyphics of Down’s syndrome patients in
Malaya—a comparative study. Anthropologischer Anzeiger 56,
351–365.
THORNBURY JM, MISTRETTA CM (1981) Tactile sensitivity
as a function of age. Journal of Gerontology 36, 1–7.
WEINSTEIN S (1968) Intensive and extensive aspects of tactile
sensitivity as a function of body part, sex, and laterality. In The
Skin Senses. (ed. Kenshalo DR), pp. 195–222. Springfield, IL :
C.C. Thomas.
WEINSTEIN S, SERSEN EA (1961) Tactual sensitivity as a
function of handedness and laterality. Journal of Comparative
and Physiological Psychology 54, 665–669.
WHITE NG (1979) The use of digital dermatoglyphics in assessing
population relationships in aboriginal Australia. Birth Defects :
Original Article Series 15, 437–454.