Dermal & Epidermal Skin - ScienceDirect paper

[JohnT]

Just wondering if anyone has come across this paper...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 3815001656

This probably goes without saying but I'm shocked that the supposed 'findings' in this paper suggest that there is only a 63% corrspondence of ridge detail between the dermal & epidermal skin.

What has happened to the basic understanding of the developement of ridge skin and the relationship between the dermal and epidermal layers?

Am I missing something here?

[Tazman]

Looking at the images in "Figure 2," which compares the features on the dermis to the features on the epidermis, I have to wonder who marked up those prints. Autoextract? Somebody who didn't know friction ridge details? If the markings of those two images is representative of the "63% Correspondence" (and conversely, 37% noncorrespondence), then it is easy to see why they came up with their conclusion. Either they don't know what they are doing, or they are not looking at features in the same sense that we look at features.

[JohnT]

Hi Tazman

Thanks for your comments, I agree.

IMO all this paper demonstrates is human error in marking features on photographs of epidermal and dermal skin. To extend this process and use it as proof that there are differences in the location of actual ridge characteristics between dermal and epidermal skin is a huge, and I believe, unreasonable leap.

[josher89]

I believe, that as a discipline, we have the responsibility to confront the authors of this paper and point out the misstatements and/or errors of their research. Or, before you know it, we'll be asked to explain why this paper exists and that we are wrong 30% of the time when it comes to finding minutiae.