NUMERICAL MODEL OF ANIMAL HAIRS
Computerized treatment requires transcription of morphological features into alphanumerical shape. In the code system used in the FURSKIN program, each structural feature is represented by a letter of the alphabet. All micro-morphological variants of the feature are described by numbers. The first three letters represent skin surface, shape of upper part of follicles and average number of hairs in a follicle. The following eleven letters represent structural features of three main hair types, particularly fine fibers, intermediate fibers and guard hairs. Therefore, these letters are used three times.

Surface of skin: a - b - c
Fine fibers: d - e - f - g -h - i - j - k - l - m - n
Intermediate fibers: d - e - f - g -h - i - j - k - l - m - n
Guard hairs: d - e - f - g -h - i - j - k - l - m - n

Any individual letter in this scheme describes the following structural pattern:
a - appearance of skin surface (3 types)
b - the shape of upper part of follicles (6 types)
c - number of fibers in follicle (3 types)
d - the shape of hair cross-section (9 types)
e - shape of cuticular scales (16 types)
f - surface of cuticular scales (3 types)
g - the shape of scale margins (2 types)
h - size of medulla (4 types)
i - longitudinal shape of medulla (2 types)
j - shape of medullar cross-section (4 types)
k - structure of medulla (16 types)
l - structure of medullar filling (8 types)
m - minimal and maximal thickness of fiber shafts (in µm)
n - extent of hair lengths (in mm)


HOW THE IDENTIFICATION WORKS
The FURSKIN program understands the comparison of structural features of a tested sample with a huge volume of structural data offered by an ensemble of expressive fur skins. The micro-morphological patterns of tested fur skin are placed into a computer and compared by program procedures. For each fur skin species a calculated "score of similarity" is represented by a number of structural differences. All scores are arranged in descending order and results are displayed or printed.


THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FURSKIN PROGRAM
The effectiveness was tested by cross-comparison of 134 fur skin species to find the most similar couples. The results in the following table suggest the important diagnostic feature of hair microscopic structure. The minimal number of differences between couples was ten dissimilarities in micro-structural patterns.

 THE GREATEST SIMILARITY IN MICRO-MORPHOLOGY
NUMBER OF
DIFFERENCES
     THE LEAST SIMILARITY OF MICRO-MORPHOLOGY
NUMBER OF
DIFFERENCES
Talpa micrura vs. Talpa europaea
10
      Capra sibirica vs. Arvicola terrestris
29
Equus caballus vs. Equus caballus (Hucul variety)
10
      Desmana moschata vs. Kobus ellipsiprymnus
29
Dama dama vs. Ovis musimon
12
      Putorius putorius vs. Cryptoprocta ferox
29
Rangifer tarandus vs. Cervus elaphus wapiti
13
      Meles meles vs. Ovis aries - Persian lamb skin
29
Panthera tigris altaica vs. Panthera pardus
13
      Castor fiber vs. Tamandua tetradactyla
29
Antilope cervicapra vs. Kobus ellipsiprymnus
13
      Canis familiaris collie vs. Otocolobus manul
29
Martes zibellina vs. Lutreola lutreola
14
      Oryctolagus cuniculus vs. Vulpes vulpes
30
Tamandua tetradactyla vs. Boocercus euryceros
15
      Sus scrofa scrofa vs. Giraffa camelopardalis
30
Cynocephalus temmincki vs. Lemur cata
15
      Alopex lagopus vs. Vulpes vulpes
33
Hylobates lar vs. Ovis aries - Cigaja lamb skin
16
      Antidorcas marsupialis vs. Equus przewalskii
34
Cercopithecus mona vs. Hylobates lar
16
      Choloepus didactylus vs. Connochaetes gnou
37
Ovis aries - Cigaja lamb skin vs. Cercopithecus mona
16
      Dicotyles tajacu vs. Canis familiaris collie
43


DISCUSSION
The comparative study with 134 different fur skin species validates the long accepted diagnostic ability of the microscopic method for identification of small samples. Comparison among species discovered an average number of 20 important dissimilarities between most of the species. This demonstrates a high degree of individuality of fur skin micro-morphology.
In spite of the range, including over 10,000 micro-photos, the study cannot be considered as fully thorough. More work needs to be done to determine the differences over skin areas, winter and summer coats, between male and female animals, changes induced by maturation and on domesticated animals. It is also important to determine the effect of variability among races. This study should be of a non sustainable range and may be too expensive if compared with its usefulness. On the contrary, owing to this structural variability, different samples of identical species may not have a zero level of dissimilarity. The accessible number of differences eventually would be in the range of dozens.



Copyright © 2011 Furskin Co.