Whipple, furthermore, offered evidence that such structures are ontogenetically similar to the more intricately developed ridges that occur on the pads of the higher primates (i.e., their fingerprints) and seem to serve a similar purpose, namely “increased friction, whether in walking or apprehension.” Do patterns remain unchanged throughout the animal's life? A basic premise of this study is that the patterns present on fishers’ metacarpal pads do not change during the study period (which could conceivably extend throughout the life of an individual). Our investigation has not attempted to confirm this last point, although we note that Whipple (1904), based on the structural and ontogenetic similarity to human fingerprints, thought it likely that these patterns would, like human fingerprints, persist throughout an animal’s lifetime. Damage to the pad is a possibility. We have seen tracks made by certain individuals that exhibit small areas where the wart-like structures consistently fail to generate the expected patterns. These may be the result of scarring. What about other parts of the foot? Similar patterns are present on the digits and it is possible that these might contain sufficient information to identify individuals. We have not investigated this, however, largely because the digit prints are often smudged on track plates and not easily compared. We have made no attempt to employ the rear feet either. When following the standard field methodology, rear prints are much less common than fronts. Are the patterns of siblings similar? We have not investigated this. In humans, some fingerprint characteristics have been shown to be heritable. Back to Basics
Next 
Fisher Print Home 
|
|||||||
