| As
a palmist, it is not hard to see why none of these systems
was ever used successfully as a diagnostic tool: the information
provided is insufficient. Lieber (1960) set out to correct
this problem.
This
attempt to categorize the variations of the Head and Heart
Lines, with all its detail, still does not cover curved
vs. flat Heart Lines, broken Head Lines and numerous other
variations familiar to hand readers.
The
reason it failed to catch on, however, was not because it
missed too much, but because it was too cumbersome to use.
|
|
|
|
Lieber's
study also included several hand types that he considered "unequivocally
pathological."
| C2,
C3, C4, and C5 could possibly be pathological, although without information
about the rest of the hand this characterization must be regarded
as extreme. Hand C1 seems normal. The double Life Line formation could
indicate someone who completely rearranges his/her life at some point
in time or is constantly rearranging things (or, at least, is thinking
of it). It could also show a person of great vitality (the double
Life Line acting as an extended Line of Mars). In no way does this
formation indicate anything even remotely pathological. |
 |
|
Another
researcher, Milton Alter, MD and PhD5 found all the existing
systems inadequate, so he created his own (1970). Alter is often referred
to as an expert in the field, and his categorization seems simultaneously
simple, comprehensive and scientific. Starting with four categories as follows:
- The major lines
together
- The Heart Line
(Distal Transverse Crease)
- The Head Line
(Proximal Transverse Crease)
- The Life Line
(Thenar Crease),
He broke each category
into a few sub-categories and statistically compared males and females
and left and right hands.
|
Variations
in Distal Transverse Creases, Minnesota Series
|
|
Normal
|
Forked
|
Absent
|
Total
|
Distal Border Terminus
|
Accessory Distal Crease
|
| Males
(# = 100) |
| Left |
83
|
16
|
1
|
100
|
14
|
4
|
| Right |
81
|
16
|
1
|
100
|
18
|
5
|
| Total |
164
|
34
|
2
|
200
|
32
|
9
|
| % |
82
|
17
|
1
|
100
|
16
|
4.5
|
| Females
(# = 100) |
| Left |
77
|
22
|
1
|
100
|
20
|
14
|
| Right |
77
|
19
|
4
|
100
|
21
|
7
|
| Total |
154
|
41
|
5
|
200
|
41
|
21
|
| % |
77
|
20.5
|
2.5
|
100
|
20.5
|
10
|
| Total
% (M & F) |
79.5
|
18.8
|
1.8
|
--
|
18.3
|
7.5
|
According to the above
figures, women are more than twice as likely as men to have Girdles of
Venus (Accessory Distal Crease), and their left hands are twice as likely
as their right hands to have this marking. This seems accurate enough
to me. However, it is hard to imagine Alter is correct when he claims
that only 20% of Heart Lines fork (80% seems more likely -- palmists:
what do you think?)
Although Alter's system
was easily the most thorough and practical of its time (and it is still
referred to as one of the standard works in the field), it is severely
flawed by errors of identification. Alter repeatedly mistakes the Fate
Line for other lines, specifically the Head Line (Figure 4A, see below)
and the Life Line ((4B and 4C). The fact that these glaring errors have
gone unnoticed by the scientific community for so long points out the
need for more cooperation and communication between the scientific and
palmistic communities. Hopefully, that day is coming.
In the next HAJ we will look at the most successful scientific line classification
(Chaube, 1971), the most thorough comparison of medical and palmistic
points of view (Opitz and Johnson, 1971) and Dar and Schmidt's topographic
system (1976) reminiscent of palmist Noel Jaquin.
|
