Kaszab Zoltán (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 71. (Budapest 1979)
Gladkova, T. D. ; Tóth, T.: The dermatoglyphical materials of Hungarians from Gyöngyöstarján and Kisfalud
The Dermatoglyphical Materials of Hungarians from Gyöngyöstarján and Kisfalud by T. D. GLADKOVA, Moscow & T. TÓTH, Budapest Abstract — The present study compares the dermatoglyphic data of two groups with those of thirty peoples. The group of Hungarian males is closer to the North Caucasian ethnicum rather than to that of the Ural Mts. With 2 figures and 8 tables. In our previous work (GLADKOVA & TÓTH 1977) we gave comparative characteristics of finger and palmar dermatoglyphics of Hungarians from different regions of the Hungarian People's Republic. We used literature data and our own materials from Karcag (BONNEVIE 1929, ABEL 1940, MALÁN 1939, 1940, THOMA 1969, OSZTOVICS et all. 1971, GYENIS 1975, GLADKOVA & TÓTH 1973, 1975). Comparative analysis showed the extensive variability, dispersity and crossing similarity between the different groups of Hungarians. In the present study we discuss new dermatoglyphic materials of Hungarians from Gyöngyöstarján (162 males), com. Nógrád in North Hungary, between the rivers Danube and Tisza, and Kisfalud (135 males), Com. Győr-Sopron in West Hungary (Fig. 1). Finger and palmar prints were collected by TÓTH in 1971. The prints have been analyzed according to the methods described by CUMMINS & MIDLO (1961). Finger patterns. — Table 1 shows that in our samples from Gyöngyöstarján and Kisfalud the bilateral variation and the distribution of the patterns on I-V digits of the right and left hand are almost the same as in other peoples (CHAMLA 1962-1963; REMANE et al. 1966, GLADKOVA 1966). Arches (A) and ulnar loops (U) are more frequent in the right hand, while whorls (W) and radial loops (R) are more common in the left hand. Whorls are most numerous on digits I and IV, ulnar loops are the most abundant pattern for digit V, arches and radial loops — for digits II and III (Table 2). In the group from Gyöngyöstarján (Table 3) the precentage of arches is somewhat higher and that of loops lower than in the group from Kisfalud. The frequency of whorls and the value of pattern intensity (Dl 10 ) do not significantly distinguish both groups. Fig. 1. Map of the distribution of the studied Hungarian groups (see Fig. 2)
