Explanation
The Henry Classification System allows for logical categorization of ten-print fingerprint records into primary groupings based on fingerprint pattern types. This system reduces the effort necessary to search large numbers of fingerprint records by classifying fingerprint records according to gross physiological characteristics. Subsequent searches (manual or automated) utilizing granular characteristics such as minutiae are greatly simplified. The Henry Classification System is a method to classify fingerprints and exclude potential candidates. This system should NEVER be used for individualization.
The Henry Classification System assigns each finger a number according to the order in which is it located in the hand, beginning with the right thumb as number 1 and ending with the left pinky as number 10. The system also assigns a numerical value to fingers that contain a whorl pattern; fingers 1 and 2 each have a value of 16, fingers 3 and 4 have a value of 8, and so on, with the final two fingers having a value of 1. Fingers with a non-whorl pattern, such as an arch or loop pattern, have a value of zero. (Harling 1996). The sum of the even finger value is then calculated and placed in the numerator of a fraction. The sum of the odd finger values is placed in the denominator. The value of 1 is added to each sum of the whorls with the maxium obtainable on either side of the fraction being 32. Thus, the primary classification is a fraction between 1/1 to 32/32 where 1/1 would indicate no whorl patterns and 32/32 would mean that all fingers had whorl patterns. (Roberts 2008)
Read more about this topic: Henry Classification System
Famous quotes containing the word explanation:
“How strange a scene is this in which we are such shifting figures, pictures, shadows. The mystery of our existence—I have no faith in any attempted explanation of it. It is all a dark, unfathomed profound.”
—Rutherford Birchard Hayes (1822–1893)
“The explanation of the propensity of the English people to portrait painting is to be found in their relish for a Fact. Let a man do the grandest things, fight the greatest battles, or be distinguished by the most brilliant personal heroism, yet the English people would prefer his portrait to a painting of the great deed. The likeness they can judge of; his existence is a Fact. But the truth of the picture of his deeds they cannot judge of, for they have no imagination.”
—Benjamin Haydon (1786–1846)
“Are cans constitutionally iffy? Whenever, that is, we say that we can do something, or could do something, or could have done something, is there an if in the offing—suppressed, it may be, but due nevertheless to appear when we set out our sentence in full or when we give an explanation of its meaning?”
—J.L. (John Langshaw)