AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 6937-50 (1986)

Digital Dermatoglyphics of Bulgarians From Northeast Bulgaria

GEORGE B. KAREV
Department of Biology, Higher Medical Institute, Varna, 9002 Bulgaria

KEY WORDS Dermatoglyphics, Bulgarian dermatoglyphics,

Fingerprints, Fingerprint classifications

ABSTRACT Digital dermatoglyphics were collected from 1,065 male and

1,065 female Bulgarians from northeast Bulgaria. None of the subjects had a
diagnosed or suspected genetic or chronic disease of any kind. The fingerprints
were classified by the 18-type system of Monique de Lestrange, modified to
provide rapid and easy comparison with simpler classification systems.
All the standard finger pattern indices were calculated. Certain modifica-
tions were introduced into the delta indices, it being borne in mind that each
tented arch possesses a triradius and each complex (three-centered, accidental)
whorl contains three triradii. A deltadiagram was constructed and its configu-
ration was compared with those of some other populations. In addition, a new
radioulnar index was proposed, representing a ratio between all the radial and
all the ulnar patterns. The total, absolute, ulnar and radial finger ridge counts
were calculated and their sample distributions were investigated.
The dermatoglyphic features were evaluated and presented for each sex and
each hand separately in order to investigate both the sex and bilateral
differences.
The set of data presented in this paper is a component of the physical
anthropology of the general Bulgarian population. At the same time these
data can be used as controls when analyzing the dermatoglyphic findings in
Bulgarian patients with genetic diseases or congenital malformations.

Dermatoglyphic patterns have become a n
increasingly important object in medical ge-
netics since Cummins (1926) revealed some
of their peculiarities in developmental de-
fects and especially since he described (Cum-
mins, 1939) the dermatoglyphics of mongol-
ism. On the other hand, taking population
dermatoglyphic differences into considera-
tion, it is important for the dermatoglyphic
findings in pathological cases to be discussed
and interpreted in the light of the normal
dermatoglyphics of the population to which
the patient belongs. Therefore, anthropolo-
gists and physicians should be equally inter-
ested in the normal dermatoglyphics of all
peoples.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The Bulgarian people are descended from
three ancient populations-Thracians, Slavs,
and Proto-Bulgarians-by their mutual as-
similation during the eighth and ninth cen-
turies. In the area we now call northeast
Bulgaria, the Thracians were comparatively
few and the Slavs and Proto-Bulgarians were
more numerous than in the other parts of the
country. Marriage among Proto-Bulgarians
and Slavs became a common practice among
both commoners and the ruling aristocracy
(Angelov, 19711, and the process of amalgam-
ation of these two groups was rather inten-
sive in this region. Northeast Bulgaria
played a central role in all kinds of adminis-
trative, economic, and military activities dur-
ing the course of the ethnogenesis of the Bul-
garian people and the consolidation of the
Bulgarian state. Two settlements in this re-
gion, Pliska and Preslav, were consecutively
the first and second capitals of the First Bul-
garian Empire. The importance of northeast
Bulgaria in the state affairs and cultural
Received October 12,1981; revised May 10,1983;accepted May
20,1985.

0 1986 ALAN R. LISS, INC

38 G.B. KAREV

development of the country increased even The study was organized in conformity with
more with the adoption of Christianity in the theory of representative sampling (Tso-
A.D. 864, as well as with the development of nev, 1958). Its parameters were calculated
the Bulgarian-Slavonic alphabet and writing. from the results of a microstudy including a
Dermatoglyphic investigations of Bulgari- small part of the chosen contingent (120
ans were until recently very scanty. Abel males and 120 females). The sample size was
(1940) and Markov (1947) investigated small calculated to be 1,060 males and 1,059 fe-
samples of Bulgarians, but at present their males, i.e., 2,119 persons; the optimal size of
studies are of historical interest only. Kaleva each subset was found to be 30 persons (15 of
(1971) studied the digital dermatoglyphics of each sex). By dividing 2,119 by 30, the num-
9,600 Bulgarians, but we can by no means ber of needed subsets was determined to be
agree with her statement that the results 71. All of the 28,475 high school students
represent the normal dermatoglyphics of that attended the high schools of northeast
Bulgarians. First of all, Kaleva used the fin- Bulgaria during the school year 197611977
gerprint collections of the Police Identifica- were divided into 446 subsets and of these,
tion Offices in the Plovdiv and the 71 were randomly selected to be examined.
Blagoevgrad districts. It is well known that The names of the 16 settlements where they
the prints of criminals are not suitable ma- resided are underlined on the map (Fig. 1).
terial for population dermatoglyphic inves-
tigations (Alter, 1967; Weninger, 1976). METHODS
Moreover, such a serious pitfall as the use of Fingerprinting and fingerprint classification
a criminal fingerprint collection inevitably Fingerprints were obtained from all the
leads to a series of additional discrepancies. persons in the sample by means of a n inking
The number of investigated persons from dif- procedure described by O’Hara (1956). The
ferent regions of the country is very unbal- fingers of the right hand were rolled left-
anced, since it entirely depends on the wards and the left hand fingers rightwards,
accidental migrations of the criminals from so that every finger was rolled in a medial
these regions to the two selected districts. Asdirection to avoid involuntary muscular re-
a result, the number of inhabitants of the sistance. Care was also taken to receive com-
Plovdiv district in Kaleva’s sample is five plete and detailed prints, including the epi-
times bigger than the total sum of examined dermal design of the whole distal phalanx of
persons coming from all six districts of north-every finger from nail edge to nail edge.
east Bulgaria, and for reasons that are not Finger patterns have been traditionally
difficult to understand, men in the sample in classified into four major types: whorls, ulnar
question are 4.7 times more numerous than loops, radial loops, and arches, ever since Sir
are women. Francis Galton (1892) introduced the analy-
For the last 6 years we have studied the sis of fingerprints for the purpose of personal
digital and palmar dermatoglyphics and the identification. Later many attempts were
palmar flexion creases of citizens of north- made, more or less successfully, to develop
east Bulgaria. Our immediate goals were to this system by subdividing its types into sub-
obtain complete and detailed dermatoglyphic types, taking into consideration the size,
data about this part of the Bulgarian people structure, and orientation of the patterns
as a component of their physical anthropol- (Lestrange, 1953; Okros, 1965; Penrose,
ogy and to provide a proper basis for compar- 1968). Undoubtedly, the more the classifica-
ative interpretation of dermatoglyphic tion system is worked out in detail, the more
findings in pathological conditims. The pres- information we can receive by its applica-
ent report deals with the digital dermato- tion. Simultaneously, however, the time con-
glyphics only; a further paper on the palmar sumed and investigator error increase, too,
dermatoglyphics and palmar flexion creases and-what is more important-the possibil-
of the same population is planned. ity to compare the results with those of other
THE SAMPLE
authors decreases considerably.
In our work a n attempt was made to com-
We preferred the high school students of bine the advantages of three different classi-
this region, aged 16--19years, as a contingent fication systems. First of all, the type of print
from which to single out our sample. No per- in accordance with Galton’s system is regis-
son included in the sample had a diagnosed tered by a capital letter (W, U, R, or A).
or suspected genetic or chronic disease of any Second, its position in Penrose’s system (Pen-
kind. rose, 1968) is marked by a small letter (0,s,
 DIGITAL DERMATOGLYPHICS OF NORTHEAST BULGARIANS 39

_._._ state border

- - - district border

Fig. 1. Northeast Bulgaria: Distribution of our sample.

or t), used as a superscript. Thus the arches values of the second row from all the six
are divided into simple arches A and tented adjoining columns, belonging to ‘‘ W ”.
ones At and the whorls are subdivided into
concentric whorls Wo and spiral ones Ws. Standard finger pattern indices
Third, a subscript from 1 to 18 indicates the The whorl/loop (Furuhata, 1928), arch/
place of the print according to Lestrange’s whorl (Dankmeijer, 1934),and arcMoop (Poll,
system (1953): Al, A;, W&, and W& are ra- 1937a,b) indices were investigated. The in-
dial variants; A2, A: , WO,, and WS7 are dex of the pattern intensity (Cumrnins and
symmetrical patterns, and As, Ak , Wp5, and Goldstein, 1932) was also calculated. A spe-
W& are ulnarly oriented patterns. As to cial variant of Poll’s delta-index (Kirchmair
loops, R7 and U8 are typical radial and ulnar and Poll, 1936) is the idio-delta-index (Ad-
loops, R9 and Ulo are loops with a tendency ams, 19641, demonstrating the average num-
towards a concentric whorl, and Rll and UI2 ber of triradii for each of the ten fingers
are loops with a tendency towards a spiral separately. It was calculated and graphically
whorl. These modifications are shown in Fig- presented by the method proposed by Poll
ure 2, and the results obtained by their ap- (1938) and described later by Adarns (1964)
plication should be organized in the forms of as deltadiagram. Geipel’s radioulnar index
Tables 5 and 6. When such data have to be (Geipel, 1956) was also calculated.
compared with results generated by simpler The complex patterns, although each in-
classifications, it is easily accomplished. If, cludes three triradii in its structure, are con-
for instance, the frequency of whorls on the sidered as a broad class of whorls (Penrose,
right second finger in males has to be com- 1968) or accidental whorls (Alter, 1967). In
pared with that of another population, whose general, one may consider these patterns as
whorls on the same finger are presented as a whorls, but it is our opinion that one must
composite, it would be sufficient to add the not neglect the third triradii of the complex
40
Fig. 2. Modification of the system by Lestrange (1953)
used in this study.
patterns nor the single triradius of each
tented arch in the precise index calculations.
That is why we modified the original formu-
las of the pattern intensity indices by includ-
G.B. KAREV
ing in their numerators the number of tented
arches, as well as the number of complex
whorls, multiplied by 3.
A new finger pattern index
As will be seen from the analysis of the
finger pattern frequencies by means of the
proposed modification of Lestrange’s system,
the radial variants of the different kinds of
whorls and arches tend to show higher fre-
quencies on the fingers on which the radial
loops are more frequently found. In order to
insure a quantitative approach to this phe-
nomenon we introduced a new index in our
work. It can be called a radioulnar index; it
represents the ratio between the sums of all
radial and all ulnar variants of the pattern
types:
Id,
-
-
Wp3 + Wj, + R7 + Rg + R11 + A1 + A$
W’j, + WS,, + Us + Ulo + Ulz + A3 + A : ’
where W&, Ws,, etc., are the numbers of the
corresponding pattern types in the popula-
tion. The proposed index allows a quantita-
tive expression of the orientation of the
patterns and may be examined with respect
to every particular finger, as well as with
regard to bilateral, sex, and population dif-
ferences.
The finger ridge count
The total ridge count (TRC) was calculated
by adding the ridge counts of all fingers of
a n individual, the higher value of each whorl
being included only. The absolute ridge count
(ARC) was determined by adding the counts
from all triradii, i.e., each whorl participated
in the ARC with two values.
Beiguelman and Pinto-Junior (1971) pro-
posed to count the number of the ridges sep-
arately according to either the radial or the
ulnar side of the pattern. The first of these
values was investigated as a radial ridge
count (RRC) and the second as an ulnar ridge
count (URC). Since the URC and RRC can be
considered components of the ARC, the con-
tribution of each of them to the formation of
the ARC was also examined. The sample dis-
tributions of the TRC, URC, RRC and ARC
were constructed and compared. Besides the
summed ridge counts and their distributions,
the means and standard errors of the TRC,
RRC, and URC, each digit separately, were
also calculated and analyzed.
 DIGITAL DERMATOGLYPHICS OF NORTHEAST BULGARIANS
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Finger pattern types
In the first dermatoglyphic study of Bul-
garians, Abel (1940) considered both sexes
and both hands jointly and did not divide the
loops into ulnar and radial ones. Neverthe-
less, as far as we know, it is the only derma-
toglyphic examination of Bulgarians that is
familiar to Western authors and that is used
and cited in their review articles (Chamla,
1962, 1963; Adams, 1968; Gladkova, 1966).
In addition, it appears that Abel's data about
Bulgarians were wrongfully presented in
most, if not in all, of the papers in which his
study was cited. For instance Chamla (1962,
1963) erroneously presented the values in
question in her review; the same is true for
Gladkova (1966),who cited other German au-
thors' studies of Abel's work, as well as for
Adams (1968), who, citing Abel through the
mediation of Chamla, also incorrectly repre-
sented all his results concerning Bulgarians.
That is why it is worthwhile to cite first of
all the correct data of Abel and to compare
our results with those reported by him. Abel
(1940) investigated 558 Bulgarians from four
different settlements and gave the four sets
of results separately in one of his tables. We
calculated the combined pattern frequencies
for all of the settlements investigated by him.
It turned out that the results cited in the
above-mentioned review articles coincide
neither with any of the four separate sets of
data, nor with the summed results. The cal-
culated pattern frequencies for his sample as
a whole are 31.00% whorls, 65.22% loops,
and 3.78% arches. In our present study we
found 33.12% whorls, 62.33% loops, and
4.55% arches. In other words we found more
whorls and arches and fewer loops than Abel
(1940) did; the difference between these two
TABLE 1. Absolute numbers and percentages (WOf A p%)' o f the four major pattern types and
significance of the sex differences
Sex Whorls
Male 3,727
34.9950.90
Female 3,328
31.25k0.88
Significance of the P < 0.01
sex difference
'P% = Percentage of the pattern type. A p% = maximal error of this percentage, calculated by the formula A p% = u
(PQ/Nf', where u = 1.96, P is the percentage of the pattern type, Q = 1 - P and N = 10,650 is the number of the
examined fingers for the given sex.
41
sets of data is statistically significant beyond
the 0.001 level (P < 0.001).
The frequencies of the four major pattern
types in our sample are presented in Table 1.
These data were compared with those re-
ported in the other Slavonic populations:
Russians (Semenovsky, 19271, Serbians and
Yugoslavians (Abel, 1940), Czechs (Mala,
1961), and Slovakians (Pospisil, 1970). Com-
parisons were also performed with dermato-
glyphic data reported for the peoples of
neighboring countries: Serbians and Yugo-
slavians, mentioned above among Slavonic
populations, as well as Rumanians (Turai and
Leonida, 1971), Turks (Atasu, 19761, and
Greeks (Weninger, 1974; Brehme and Pen-
tzos-Daponte, 1975).
It was revealed by the first set of compari-
sons that the Slovakians investigated by Pos-
piGl (1970) are the only Slavonic population
that demonstrates a somewhat higher fre-
quency of whorls than Bulgarians do (36.73%
vs. 34.99% in males and 31.42% vs. 31.25%
in females). Thus the Bulgarians show the
second-highest frequency of whorls among all
hitherto investigated Slavonic populations.
The second set of comparisons with derma-
toglyphic features of neighboring peoples
showed that the trends reviewed by Chamla
(1962, 1963) are in general relevant for the
populations of the Balkan peninsula. The
progressive increasing of the whorls as one
moves from northwest towards southeast and
from west to east, described by Chamla, is
here demonstratively manifested: Bulgari-
ans show higher percentages of whorls than
Romanians, Serbians, and Yugoslavians, but
lower percentages than Turks and Greeks.
The decreasing of the loops as one moves
west to east is also observed here: Bulgarians
show lower frequency of loops than do Serbi-
ans and Yugoslavians. As for arches, our
Pattern type
Ulnar Radial
loops loops Arches Total
5,969 528 426 10,650
56.05+0.94 4.96k0.41 4.001-0.37 100.00
6,340 440 542 10,650
59.53k0.93 4.13+0.38 5.091-0.42 100.00
P < 0.01 P < 0.01 P < 0.01
42
findings confirm the general tendency of de-
creasing percentages as one moves from
north to south. That pattern has its highest
frequency in the Rumanians (Turai and
Leonida, 19711, followed in descending order
by Bulgarians (present study), Turks (Atasu,
1976), and Greeks (Weninger, 1974). Of
course, because of the differences in pattern
frequencies between the various samples
within populations, some deviations from this
trend can be observed. Thus, Greeks from the
region of Thessaloniki (Brehme and Pentzos-
Daponte, 1975) show a higher percentage of
arches than do Bulgarians.
It is evident from Table 1 that the whorls
and radial loops are more frequent in males,
whereas the ulnar loops and arches have
higher frequencies in females. All of these
differences are highly significant (P < 0.01).
Some of them have been observed in many
other populations. Thus, in 11 of the 13 white
populations reviewed by Chamla (1962,19631,
arches showed higher proportions in females
and in 12 populations whorls were more fre-
quent in males. Plat0 et al. (1975) reported
more arches and fewer radial loops in fe-
males than in males (P < 0.01)as well as
fewer whorls on the right hands in females
than on the right hands in males in a sample
of US.whites. All of these three differences
were found in our sample as well; the propor-
tion of the left-hand whorls is also higher in
males than in females, but this difference is
not significant.
The problem arises concerning the possible
biological significance of the sex differences
in the pattern types. In our opinion, since
very little evidence exists that would suggest
sex-linked inheritance and since, on the other
hand, considerable sex differences in the pat-
TABLE 2. Percentage frequencies of the four major pattern types, each hand separately,
and significance of the bilateral differences
Pattern Percentage frequencies
type Right
Male
Whorls 38.37
Ulnar loops 52.69
Radial loops 5.37
Arches 3.57
Total 100.00
Female
Whorls 32.00
Ulnar loops 60.07
Radial loops 3.55
Arches 4.38
Total 100.00
G.B. KAREV
tern frequencies are beyond question, at least
a certain influence of the sex chromosomes
on the phenotypic realization of genetic de-
terminants of the patterns during embryogen-
esis should be assumed.
The bilateral differences between the per-
centages of finger pattern types are shown,
each sex and each hand separately, in Table
2. Both sexes show analogous bilateral differ-
ences in their whorls and arches: The whorls
are more frequent in the right hands and the
arches in the left.
The distribution of the patterns between
the major types is given, each finger sepa-
rately, in Tables 3 and 4. It is evident from
the last column of Table 3 that the general
formula for the females repeats the arrange-
ment of the pattern types found in all but
second fingers. In males (Table 4) radial loops
also show lower percentages than do arches
in all fingers except the second fingers of
both hands. The prevalence of the radial loops
over the arches on the second fingers is, how-
ever, so considerable here that in the general
formula for males the radial loops also take
third position, followed by arches in fourth
place.
If all the whorls are treated together, as
the four-type system does, their frequencies
decrease from the first towards the fifth fin-
ger. A deviation from this tendency is ob-
served on the fourth finger, on which the
highest percentage of this type is found. A
high proportion of whorls is also observed on
the second finger of the left hand. When the
six-type system (Penrose, 1968) was applied
towards the same material and the whorls
were subclassified into concentric and spiral
ones, the concentric whorls retained both of
these deviations; what is more, the men-
Significance of the
Left - bilateral differences
31.62 P < 0.01
59.40 P < 0.01
4.55 P < 0.01
4.43 P < 0.01
100.00
30.50 P < 0.05
58.99 Not significant
4.71 P < 0.01
5.80 P < 0.01
100.00
 DIGITAL DERMATOGLYPHICS OF NORTHEAST BULGARIANS 43

TABLE 3. Percentage distribution (P%o i A p%)' ofthe finger patterns, each finger separately, in 1,065 Bulgarian
females
Finger
Pattern type Dattern
Whorls Ulnar loops Radial loops Arches iormula
Digit (w) (u) (R) (A)
_____^_
U-W-A-R
Right
1 41.12 f 2.95 55.21 f 2.98 0.57 f 0.45 3.10 f 1.04 U-W-A-R
2 37.74 It 2.91 37.37 k 2.90 15.12 & 2.15 9.77 1.78 W-U-R-A
3 19.35 f 2.37 74.08 f 2.63 1.50 k 0.73 5.07 f 1.32 U-W-A-R
4 47.42 f 2.99 49.67 f 3.00 0.47 f 0.40 2.44 f 0.93 U-WAR
5 14.36 f 2.10 84.04 k 2.19 0.09 f 0.18 1.51 f 0.73 U-W-A-R
Left
1 36.35 f 2.89 58.39 f 2.96 0.94 f 0.58 4.32 f 1.22 U-W-A-R
2 36.99 f 2.90 32.68 k 2.81 18.69 f 2.34 11.64 & 1.93 W-U-R-A
3 21.69 f 2.47 66.30 f 2.83 3.00 f 1.02 9.01 f 1.72 U-W-A-R
4 43.28 +_ 2.97 53.06 f 2.99 0.94 f 0.58 2.72 f 0.98 U-W-A-R
5 14.19 f 2.09 84.50 f 2.17 0.00 f 0.00 1.31 f 0.68 U-W-A-R
'See footnote 1 of Table 1.

TABLE 4. Percentage distribution (P%uf A p%)' of the finger patterns, each finger separately, in 1,065 Bulgarian
males
Finger
Pattern type pattern
Whorls Ulnar loops Radial loops Arches formula
Digit CN) nr) (R) (A) U-W-R-A
Right
1 50.42 f 3.00 47.80 k 3.00 0.47 f 0.40 1.31 k 0.68 W-U-A-R
2 39.81 f 2.94 29.58 k 2.74 21.87 f 2.48 8.74 f 1.69 W-U-R-A
3 24.23 f 2.57 67.98 f 2.80 2.91 f 1.00 4.88 f 1.29 U-W-A-R
4 55.40 f 2.98 41.88 k 2.96 1.31 & 0.68 1.41 f 0.70 W-U-A-R
5 21.97 & 2.49 76.24 k 2.55 0.28 f 0.32 1.51 f 0.73 U-W-A-R
Left
1 35.96 k 2.88 60.66 f 2.93 0.38 f 0.37 3.00 k 1.02 U-W-A-R
2 38.87 f 2.93 32.77 f 2.82 19.62 f 2.38 8.74 f 1.69 W-U-R-A
3 24.79 f 2.59 66.95 f 2.82 1.97 f 0.83 6.29 f 1.46 U-W-A-R
4 43.11 f 2.97 53.99 2.99 0.65 f 0.48 2.25 f 0.89 U-W-A-R
5 15.40 + 2.17 82.64 i2.27 0.09 f 0.17 1.87 f 0.81 U-W-A-R
'See footnote 1 of Table 1.

tioned high frequency of the whorls on the
second finger of the left hand in this case
appeared in the right hand as well. However,
it was different with the spiral whorls, whose
tendency towards diminution in sequence
from the first towards the fifth finger was
much better manifested. In other words, the
tendency in question seems to be due mainly
to the spiral whorls, whereas the deviations
from this trend seem to be mostly an attrib-
ute of the concentric whorls. The arches
treated as a whole are dispersed all over ten
fingers. However, when they are divided into
simple arches and tented ones, it becomes
evident that uniform dispersal is relevant for
the simple arches only, whereas the tented
ones are entirely concentrated on the second
and third fingers.
The results obtained by means of our mod-
ification of Lestrange's system are presented
in detail in Tables 5 and 6. It is only logical
that this system is able to give us the most
detailed information and to reveal some pe-
culiarities that it is impossible to learn by
means of the simpler systems. The frequen-
cies of the whorls as a whole on the left first
and second fingers in females are practically
equal-36.35% and 36.99%. After comparing
the values of the different kinds of whorls as
analyzed by the proposed modification, it be-
comes evident that these equal percentages
cover up some interesting details. Only the
symmetrical whorls Wy4 and W77 really pos-
sess similar frequencies in these two fingers.
At the same time, the radial concentric
whorls Wy3 are six times more frequent on
 'At. 5 4 3 2 Left 5 4 3 2 'At, 5 4 3 2 Left 5 4 3 2
1 Digit
1Right 1 1Right
TABLE TABLE
tented tented

0.00 0.66
0.00 0.19 0.00
1.50 0.28
0.00 0.00
0.75 A1 6. 0.00 0.28
0.09 0.00 0.00
1.22 0.09
0.00 0.00
1.13 5.
arches; arches:
Percentage Percentage
W";0.75 6.20
1.78 3.38 0.66
7.98 3.29
1.50 2.63
6.38 Az A 4.88
4.41
1.22
W",1.03 3.57
0.75
2.63 0.85 0.84
4.79

concentric concentric
0.47
0.94
1.69 0.75 0.85
1.31 0.85
1.41 0.47
2.07 A3 0.84
0.94
1.03
1.41 0.94
0.66
0.37 0.66 0.47
1.88
distribution distribution
Arches Arches
whorls; Ai whorls;
0.09
0.00
0.00 0.38
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.19 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.19
0.00 0.00 0.28
0.00 0.00
of of
W", the W",
the
spiral0.09
0.28
0.00 0.47
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.38 Ah At 0.66
0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.28
0.00 0.66
0.00
spiral 0.00

fingerprints fingerprints
whorls. 0.09
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.09
0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00
0.00 Ab whorls.
0.00 0.58
0.10
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00

by by
77.18
46.57
30.24
62.91 42.06
54.08 79.44
71.83
35.12
U8 74.18
63.29
30.42
57.09 68.64
33.24
64.88
45.45
52.11 44.51 27.51
pattern pattern
Ulnar
4.88
4.70
2.54
1.88 6.48
1.78 3.19 0.94
1.03 1.22 U l o 4.23
6.48
2.16
1.41 6.57
2.07 4.60 2.07 1.13
1.32
type' type'
loops
in in
2.44 0.56
0.85
1.79 1.13
2.53 1.41 1.22 1.88 U l z
1.31 4.23
3.00 0.94
1.50 2.07
1.50 3.00 1.03
0.75
1.22
1,065 Lestrange
1,065

R7
0.00 15.59
2.63
0.94 0.94 0.09
0.38 12.11
1.22 0.57 Bulgarian 0.28
0.09 16.81
1.69 0.38 0.28 17.93
2.25
1.03 0.38 (1953)
Bulgarian

RgRadial 0.47
0.00
0.00 2.35
0.28 0.09
0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00
2.35 0.00
0.28
0.28 0.28
0.00 0.00
1.50 0.00
1.69
females males
loops
0.09
0.00
0.00 0.75 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.66
0.19 R11 0.09
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.31 0.49
0.00 0.09
2.25
according according

0.47 15.59
3.76
2.91 6.39
2.63 1.31 16.71
4.98 3.38 W73 to 0.38 13.71
3.29 11.1718.59
4.98 3.29 to
1.50 1.22 0.85
our our

3.66
0.38 2.91
1.88 2.54 0.47 2.35
5.82 2.91
3.19 Woi,W0 2.72
4.51
0.38 5.16
3.19 2.16 3.57
7.98 4.70
5.73
modification m.odification

31.27
9.7710.42
7.04 29.95
11.74 10.246.7615.49 W75
7.23 29.49
9.20 9.86
7.14 26.48
10.8012.217.5116.99
4.60
of of
Whorls the Whorls the
0.56
0.09
0.00 4.41 0.10
1.13 0.00 4.79
1.41 0.56 W s 6 0.09 0.66
0.00 5.07
0.56 0.09 2.16
1.13 6.57
1.50

classification classification
0.00 0.19
0.28 1.13
1.22 0.09 0.66
0.56 1.13
1.41 Ws7W" 0.09 0.75
0.28 1.13 0.09
1.12 0.94
1.13 1.41
1.31

system system
 DIGITAL DERMATOGLYPHICS OF NORTHEAST BULGARIANS 45

the second finger than on the first. The ulnar ing values calculated by the classical for-
spiral whorls w& show a three times higher mula. Because of the low frequencies of the
frequency on the first finger than on the sec- complex whorls and tented arches, the differ-
ond and so on. ences between the two sets of values are com-
Such details, revealed when the six-type paratively small; nevertheless we consider
system is used and especially by means of that the modified formula reflects the pat-
the modified Lestrange classification, can be tern intensity more precisely.
of interest in two main respects. On the one The idio-delta-index(Adams, 1964) reflects
hand they enrich our knowledge of dermato- the average number of deltas on every finger
glyphic variability in man and thus serve separately. It was also found by a corrected
our desire to know about ourselves. On the formula, taking into consideration the pres-
other hand this level of dermatoglyphic var- ence of three deltas in each complex whorl
iability might mean that some dermato- and a delta in each tented arch. When the
glyphic traits are genetically controlled more data, presented in Table 8, were compared
specifically than is usually considered. And, with the results obtained by the usual
if such is the case, not only the major pattern method, the only difference between the two
types, but especially their rarely found sub- sets of data was found in the second fingers.
types, should be the target of future twin and That is only logical, because complex whorl
correlation studies in order to elucidate the and tented arch patterns, additionally con-
genetic bases for the dermatoglyphic vari- sidered by the corrected formula, are almost
ability. entirely concentrated on the second fingers.
The digital arrangement for the values of the
Standard finger pattern indices and index is 4th, lSt,2nd, 3rd,and 5th in descend-
deltadiagram ing order. The bilateral, interdigital, and sex
The values of Dankmeijer’s, Poll’s, Furu- differences of the idio-delta-index were cal-
hata’s, and Cummins’s indices are presented culated and their mean values were com-
in Table 7. The values of Cummins’s delta- pared. Except for the third finger of the right
index, calculated by the slightly modified for- hand and the fourth finger of the left hand,
mula and presented in the last column of in all fingers the pattern intensity is higher
Table 7, were compared with the correspond- in males than in females. The adjoining fin-

TABLE 7. Standard finger pattern indices in northeast Bulgarians

Index
Sex Dankmeijer’s Poll’s Furuhata’s Cummins’s
Male 11.43 6.56 57.36 13.14
Female 16.29 7.99 49.08 12.65
Both sexes 13.72 7.29 53.14 12.89

TABLE 8. Idiedelta-index and radioulnar index in northeast

Bulgarians
Idio-delta-index Radioulnar index
Digit Males Fema1es Males Fema1es
Right
1 1.49 1.38 0.06 0.05
2 1.33 1.29 1.21 0.73
3 1.20 1.40 0.12 0.10
4 1.54 1.45 0.18 0.08
5 1.20 1.13 0.01 0.01
Left
1 1.33 1.32 0.02 0.06
2 1.32 1.26 0.82 0.86
3 1.19 1.13 0.07 0.10
4 1.41 1.41 0.02 0.04
5 1.14 1.13 0.01 0.01
Mean 1.32 1.29 0.25 0.20
 fz
46 G.B. KAREV

gers, which usually show smaller differences

between themselves, in this case show a dif-
v IV ni II I v w I II I v N 1 I1
1__.1
I
ference that is four times larger than the
other two differences in question.
Figure 3 shows the deltadiagram con-
structed on the basis of the values of the idio- ’EMALE BOTH
delta-index as described by Adams (1964). SEXES
This deltadiagram was transferred on a sheet
of transparent paper and was compared with
the deltadiagrams constructed by Adams
(1964) for several European and Asiatic pop-
ulations by its juxtaposition with every sin-
gle one of these deltadiagrams.
Since delta-index values are placed along
the ordinate, the general level of the figures
3-
in relation to the abscissa depends on the
pattern intensity of the population. In this
respect, among all the deltadiagrams given 4 P
by Adams (1964), that of the Russians resem-
bles ours best. In general, all three figures in
the third section of our deltadiagram, as well
as the three dots corresponding to the pat-
tern intensity of the right hand, left hand, v IVH I1 I V IV 111 H I
and both hands jointly, are situated in higher
positions than in the other European popu- Fig. 3. Deltadiagram of Bulgarians of northeast Bul-
garia. The delta-index values are placed along the ordi-
lations, but in lower ones than those of the nate and the digits in order from the fifth towards the
Asian population groups. Such a n interme- first are placed at arbitrary distances along the abscissa.
diate position is not difficult to be explained The right fingers are represented by open circles and the
in the light of the origin of the Bulgarian left by filled circles. Asterisks in the third section repre-
sent the average values of the delta-index for the left
people, in whose ethnogenesis two European hand a), right hand (R), and both hands (B).
ethnic groups (Thraces and Slavs) and one
Asian (Proto-Bulgarians) participated.
While the general level of the figures and
dots reflects the pattern intensity, the shape
of the figures and their mutual disposition The comparisons made between the sexes
depend on the differences between the pat- and the two hands demonstrate that in Bul-
tern intensity of the separate fingers. It may
garians the radial direction of the patterns is
be worth noting in this regard that among more frequently found in males than in fe-
the deltadiagrams given by Adams (1964) males and it is more typical for the right
that of Japanese population resembles the hand than for the left.
deltadiagram of Bulgarians best. The average differences between the sepa-
The values of Geipel’s index (Geipel, 1956)rate fingers are considerably bigger than the
were found to be 315 in males and 324 in sex and the bilateral differences. In both
females. The higher value in females shows sexes the highest values of the index are
that in them, the disposition of the whorls observed in the second fingers. The right in-
tends to be comparatively more “radial” than dex finger is the only one whose radioulhar
it does in males. index exceeds 1.0. Its value of 1.21 means
that the radially orientated patterns out-
The new radioulnar index number by 21% the ulnar variants of all the
The purpose of a newly proposed radioul- pattern types on this finger.
nar index is to make possible the quantita- Some possibilities for application of the in-
tive expression of the tendency of finger dex in comparative population studies can be
patterns towards a radial orientation. The presumed, but it is necessary to investigate
values of this index are given, each sex and the index in many other populations to be
each hand separately, in Table 8, in the last able to draw conclusions about its impor-
two columns. tance in this respect.
 DIGITAL DERMATOGLYPHICS OF NORTHEAST BULGARIANS 47

TABLE 9.Means and standard errors, each finger separately, of the total (TRC),radial (RRC),and ulnar (URC)
ridge counts
TRC RRC URC
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Digit Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE
Right
1 19.45 0.18 17.17 0.18 19.28 0.18 16.97 0.19 7.64 0.26 5.90 0.23
2 12.23 0.22
~~ 11.82 0.21 8.34 0.22 9.14 0.21 8.74 0.25 7.31 0.25
3 12.31 0.19 12.10 0.18 11.72 0.18 11.71 0.17 3.92 0.21 2.95 0.20
4 16.66 0.18 16.01 0.19 16.30 0.19 15.91 0.19 8.06 0.24 6.37 0.22
5 13.49 0.16 12.48 0.16 13.44 0.16 12.45 0.16 2.30 0.14 1.39 0.11
Left
1 16.95 0.19 14.98 0.18 16.74 0.19 14.56 0.18 5.48 0.24 5.15 0.22
2 11.66 0.21 11.22 0.21 8.68 0.21 8.03 0.20 7.77 0.25 7.59 0.25
3 12.83 0.19 11.80 0.20 12.42 0.19 11.23 0.20 3.91 0.22 3.48 0.21
4 16.53 0.18 15.60 0.19 16.37 0.19 15.41 0.20 6.13 0.23 5.90 0.22
5 13.41 0.16 12.43 0.16 13.39 0.19 12.40 0.16 1.80 0.13 1.51 0.12
Total 145.52 1.43 135.61 1.45 136.68 1.37 127.81 1.38 55.75 1.50 47.55 1.39

Finger ridge count tion of the RRC difference in 17.07 exceeds

The average values and standard errors of
the total (TRC), radial (RRC), and ulnar
(URC) ridge counts, each sex separately, are
presented in Table 9. The first ten rows of
Table 9 present the means and the standard
errors of each separate finger and the 11th
gives the total average values of the TRC,
RRC, and URC for a n individual of each sex.
Absolute ridge count (ARC) is not included
in the table, since its values in each sex are
easily obtainable by adding values of RRC
and URC from the corresponding columns of
the table. Thus, the mean ARC values for a n
individual are 192.43 in males and 175.36 in
females.
characteristically, in the four ridge counts
men show higher total values than do
women. The ARC sex difference is the high-
est (17.07), followed in order by those of the
TRC, RRC, and URC. All four sex differences
are highly significant (P < 0.01).The preva-
lence of the ridge count values in males over
those in females is observed not only in re-
spect to the total values, but also in every
single one of the separate fingers.
Since we considered the ARC to be a sum
of the URC and RRC, we were interested in
the contributions of these two components to
the ARC. The calculation revealed that the
RRC provides 71.03% of ARC in males and
72.88% of it in females; however, the sex
difference of 1.85% is not significant. It is
only logical to consider the sex difference of
the ARC to be a sum of the sex differences of
its components, RRC and URC. The propor-
that of the URC sex difference by 3.92%. In
other words, the excess of the ARC in men is
to a slightly greater extent due to the higher
RRC in them than to the higher URC.
In all ridge counts the sums of the right
fingers exceed those of left fingers. Such dif-
ferences are also observed between separate
right fingers and the corresponding left fin-
gers. But unlike the sex differences, there
are several exclusions here from the general
rule. In 23 of 30 such comparisons right fin-
gers show higher values than the correspond-
ing left fingers and in 7 of the cases left ridge
count values exceed right ones.
Despite sex and bilateral differences, the
arrangement of the five fingers of each hand
in descending order of their ridge count val-
ues is quite similar in both sexes and both
sides. In this regard, as can be seen from
Table 9, the TRC and RRC show the same
arrangements: in both hands of males and in
the right hand of females the highest values
are observed on the first fingers, followed by
the fourth, fifth, third, and second, in de-
scending order. In both TRC and RRC the
only deviations from this sequence are the
left hands in females, where first and fourth
fingers change their positions: the fourth fin-
gers show higher values, followed by the first
fingers.
The URC differs considerably from the TRC
and RRC regarding the arrangement of the
fingers in descending order of their ridge
count values, but the URC resembles the
other two counts with regard to the similar-
ity in this arrangement between the two
48 G.B. KAREV

sides and the two sexes. In both the right and

the left hands in both sexes the second fin-
gers show the highest values, followed by the
fourth, first, third, and fifth fingers.
The frequency distributions of the summed
ridge counts are presented in Figures 4 and
5. Figure 4 shows the distributions of the
total ridge count, each sex separately. When
comparing the actual curve of each sex with
the corresponding normal curve, it is obvious
that the actual distributions are slightly neg-
atively skewed, and in this respect they are
quite similar to these reported by Holt (1955)
for a n English sample. Holt (1961) considers
that the number of perfectly additive genes
are concerned here and that the skewness of
the distributions suggests that the number
ARC b
of genes having a n appreciable effect is fairly
small. Our recent findings completely agree
with her considerations.
The comparison of the TRC distributions
from Figure 4 with the distributions of the

w-. . . . . .
o I z 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 $0 1, la 14 E (B 37 (8 $9 $4 2

Fig. 5. Frequency distributions of the ulnar (URC) and

radial (RRC) ridge counts (a) and the absolute ridge
counts (b) with grnuping interval of 20 ridges. Average
values are shown by arrows.

other ridge counts from Figure 5 indicates

135,61
I can be class numbered among those with
Fig. 4. Total ridge count (TRC) distributions. The
grouping interval is 20; point 1 from on the abscissa
corresponds to the interval from 1 to 19 ridges; point 2,
to the interval from 20 to 39 ridges, and so on. Calcu-
lated normal curves are drawn with broken lines and
means are indicated by arrows.
that the RRC is the most similar to the TRC
curve. This finding is easily explained if it is
kept in mind that ulnar patterns providing
the RRC considerably exceed the radial ones;
therefore the TRC is formed mainly by the
same patterns that form the RRC.
The frequency distribution of the URC (Fig.
5a) differs most from the standard normal
curve. It is so much positively skewed that it
“degenerated” left halves, called L-distribu-
tions because of their resemblance to this
letter. For a trait that is under a genetic
control such a big departure of its sampling
distribution from the normal one could be
attributed either to determination by very
few genes or to polygenic inheritance with a
threshold effect. If such is the case with the
TRC, these possibilities are relevant to a
greater degree for the URC, whose skewness
is much more expressed.
Finally, the distribution of the ARC, shown
in Figure 5b, also differs considerably from
the normal curve. Showing sizable fluctua-
tions, it tends to have a multimodal appear-
ance. If we neglect these fluctuations and
 DIGITAL DERMATOGLYPHICS OF NORTHEAST BULGARIANS
discuss its general appearance only, we would
say this distribution is platykurtic and posi-
tively skewed. This distribution is the com-
bination of those of the URC and RRC and
its shape is entirely dependent on their
shapes. Since the positive skewness of the
URC distribution is extremely expressed, it
covers the negative skewness of the RRC.
In conclusion it should be emphasized that
persistent work in the field of dermatoglyph-
ics affords the investigator not only new in-
formation, but also a sense of real aesthetic
pleasure. In truth it cannot be denied that a
considerable proportion of scientists find the
objects of their studies aesthetic, but it is my
deep conviction that for those who have dealt
with dermatoglyphics, hardly any other ob-
ject of study can substitute for the beauty of
dermatoglyphic patterns.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper is dedicated to my father, Ben-
cho Georgiev Karev.
I am deeply indebted to Professor Maria
Tsoneva, M.D., D.Sc., and to Associate Pro-
fessor Elizaveta Boshnakova, M.D., Ph.D.,
for their favorable attitude to my work, as
well as to Professor Venets Tsonev for consul-
tations in the theory and practice of the rep-
resentative investigations. I am very grateful
to Mr. Peter Nikolov, deputy-minister of ed-
ucation, and to Mr. Neno Nenov, of the same
ministry, for their kind permission to carry
out this investigation with high school stu-
dents. I would especially like to express my
deep gratitude to my English teacher, Mrs.
Gizela Zacharieva. I also wish to thank Mr.
Jordan Jordanov for technical assistance.
LITERATURE CITED
Abel, W (1940) Die Erbanlagen der Papillarmuster. In
Handbuch der Erbbiologie des Menchen, Vol. 3. Berlin:
Springer, pp. 407-440.
Adams, WE (1964) The deltadiagram: A new graphical
method for the study of racial dermatoglyphics. J. An-
thropol. SOC. Nippon (Zinruigaku Zassi) 72t133-142.
Adams, WE (1968) Finger-print indices - A critique. J.
Anthropol. Soc. Nippon (Zinruigaku Zassi) 76:169-182.
Alter, M (1967) Dermatoglyphic analysis as a diagnostic
tool. Medicine (Baltimore)46:35-56.
Angelov, D (1971) Formation of the Bulgarian People.
Sofia: Naouka i Izkoustvo (in Bulgarian).
Atasu, M (1976) The dermatoglyphics of Turkish chil-
dren. In MF PospiFjil (ed), Proceedings of the Seventh
Bartos’ Dermatoglyphic Symposium. Bratislava: Univ.
Comeniana, pp. 79-91.
Beiguelman. B, and Pinto-Junior, W (19711 A new ap-
proach to dermatoglyphic studies. Rev. Bras. Pesqui.
Med. Biol. 4:305-309.
Brehme, H, and Pentzos-Daponte, A (1975)a e r Finger-
49
und Handleistenmuster von Personen aus dem Raum
ThessalonikiiGriechenland. Mitt. Anthropol. Gesell.
(Wien) 205t98-110.
Chamla, M-C (1962) La repartition geographique des
crktes papillaires digitales dans le monde: Nouvel es-
sai de synthese. L‘Anthropologie (Paris) 66r526-541.
Chamla, M-C (1963) La repartition geographique des
cretes papillaires digitales dans le monde: Nouvel es-
sai de synthese (Suite). L’Anthropologie (Paris) 67: 1-
48.
Cummins, H (1926) Epidermal-ridge configurations in
developmental defects, with particular reference to the
ontogenetic factors which condition ridge direction.
Am. J. Anat. 38t89-151.
Cummins, H (1939) Dermatoglyphic stigmata in mongo-
loid imbeciles. Anat. Rec. 73t407-415.
Cummins, H, and Goldstein, MS (1932)Dermatoglyphics
in Comanche Indians. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 17:229-
235.
Dankrneijer, J (1934) De Beteekenis van Vingerafdruk-
ken voor het Anthropologisch Onderzoek. Disserta-
tion, University of Utrecht. Utrecht: Bosch & Zoon.
Cited by Poll, 1937a,b.
Furuhata, T (1928)The difference of the index of finger
prints according to tace. Jpn. Med. World 7t162-165.
Galton, F (1892) Fingerprints. London: Macmillan. re-
print Ed.-New York: Da Capo Press, 1965.
Geipel, G von (1956) Die Finger- und Handleisten bei
Bambuti und Buschmannern. Ein statistischer Ver-
gleich und seine Folgerungen. Homo 7t74-86.
Gladkova, T (1966) Dermal Patterns of the Hand and
Sole in Monkeys and Man. Moscow: Nauka (in
Russian).
Holt, SB (1955) Genetics of dermal ridges: Frequency
distributions of total finger ridge-count. Ann. Hum.
Genet. 20t159-170.
Holt, SB (1961)Quantitative genetics of finger-print pat-
terns. Br. Med. Bull. 27t247-250.
Kaleva, A (1971) Investigations of Finger Patterns in
Bulgarian Citizens of Different Ethnical and National
Background. Ph.D. dissertation. Plovdiv: VMI (in
Bulgarian).
Kirchmair, H, and Poll, H (1936)Zur Charakteristik des
Rassenunterschiedes des Dactylogramms. Deltie, Stro-
botoxie und Brochie. Biol. Gen. 22:202-216.
Lestrange, M de (1953) Recherches critiques sur les
methodes de notation des dessins papillaires digitaux.
L’Anthropologie (Paris) 57:240-271.
Mala, L (1961) Dermatoglyfy na otiscich prstu Cechu.
Anthropol Archiv (Praha). Cited by Pospisil, 1970.
Markov, G (1947) Papillar lines in the Bulgarians. Proc.
Chamber Nat. Culture 3:153-194 (in Bulgarian).
O’Hara, CE (1956)Fundamentals of Criminal Investiga-
tions. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Okras, S (1965) The Heredity of Papillary Patterns. Bu-
dapest: Akademiai Kiado.
Penrose, LS (1968)Memorandum on dermatoglyphic no-
menclature. Birth Defects 4:l-13.
Plato, CC, Cereghino, JJ, and Steinberg, FC (1975)The
dermatoglyphics of American Caucasians. Am. J. Phys.
Anthropol. 42:195-210.
Poll, HW (1937a) Beitrage zu einer anthropologischen
Dactylographie. I. Biol. Gen. 12:437-454.
Poll, HW (193713) Beitrage zu einer anthropologischen
Dactylographie. 11. Biol. Gen. 13:175-218.
Poll, HW (1938) The deltiegramm. Unpublished manu-
script in English, in possession of W.E. Adams. Cited
by Adams, 1964.
50 G.B. KAREV
Pospisil, MF (1970) Die Dermatoglyphik der Slowakei.
Acta F.R.N. Univ. Comen. 15:153-179.
Semenovsky, PS (1927) The distribution of the principal
types of epidermic patterns on the fingers in man. J.
Russ. Anthropol. 16:7-27 (in Russian).
Tsonev, V (1958) Fundamentals of Representative Inves-
tigations. Sofia: Naouka i Izkoustvo (in Bulgarian).
Turai, C, and Leonida, C (1971) Dermatoglifologia-am-
prente palmo-plantare. Bucharest Editura Medicala.
Weninger, M (1974): Finger- und Handabdrucke van
Griechen. In: W Bernhard and A Kandler (eds), Be-
volkerungsbiologie. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag,
pp. 255-264.
Weninger, M (1976) Methodische Bemerkungen zur Un-
tersuchung des Hautleistensystems. In: MF PospiSil
(ed), Proceedings of the Seventh Bartos’ Dermato-
glyphic Symposium. Bratislava: Universitas Comen-
iana, pp. 53-61.