Dermatoglyphic variation among Finno-Ugric speaking populations: methodological alternatives.

Utilization of dermatoglyphics for population studies is apparently increasing, but methods vary widely among investigators. We investigate how different types of dermatoglyphic data can affect estimates of biological distance among Finno-Ugric speaking populations. Dermatoglyphic distances were calculated using the following categories of traits: 1) Finger ridge-counts (radial and ulnar count for each digit), 2) finger ridge-counts (largest count for each digit), 3) finger pattern types, 4) palm ridge-counts, 5) palm patterns, and 6) main-line terminations. In addition, we compare our distances with those of Heet, which rely heavily on summary characters. Distances are evaluated by comparing them to each other and to language and geographic distances. There is considerable variation in the pattern of relationships resulting from the different variable sets. Finger variables, whether ridge-counts or pattern classifications, agree well with each other. Palm patterns, main-lines, and finger variables show moderate agreement with each other, while palm ridge-counts agree poorly with all variable sets except main-lines. Heet's distances agree poorly with all other dermatoglyphic distances. Finger patterns and main-lines are most closely related to language distances, after controlling for geography, while correlations with geography generally disappear after controlling for language. Heet's distances have weak associations with language and geography. Finger variables and palm main-lines yield results which agree best with historical relationships among Finno-Ugric populations. Our results make it very clear that utilization of dermatoglyphics in population studies requires careful consideration of methods, and that summary measures of quantitative or qualitative data should be used with caution.