The little finger measured against the first joint of the ring finger. Longevity METHOD C, and the only one in the corpus that uses no line at all - it is encoded in the palm file because it is one of the three longevity methods, not because fingers belong here.
What the text says
A little finger extending well beyond that joint gives 100 years; the two level with each other give 87. Nothing else in the corpus overlaps this measurement, and it may not be averaged with the line-length or four-band methods.
Says something incompatible with 3
Both readings are shown and neither is declared correct. The texts genuinely differ, and choosing between them would be this app taking a position its sources do not.
- cl-bs68-50a-ayu-hundred·Classical verse·Lines that reach the root of the forefinger. Iyer's noun is PLURAL, and so is Sastri & Bhat's, who read it as the three principal lines taken together rather than as one crease [CC-8] - so the observation is the reach of the palm's principal transverse lines, not of a single line. The verse gives the terminus only; the origin, below the little finger, comes from BS 70.13 and from the Garuḍa Purāṇa.Bṛhat Saṁhitā 68.50 (tr. N. Chidambaram Iyer, Part II, 1885)
- cl-bs70-13-ayu-women·Classical verse·On a woman's palm, a line issuing from below the little finger and reaching the place between the forefinger and the middle finger. This is the singular, unambiguous statement of the āyu-rekhā's whole topology - origin AND terminus - and its terminus is one finger further along than the men's rule at 68.50.Bṛhat Saṁhitā 70.13 (tr. N. Chidambaram Iyer, Part II, 1885)
- cl-ska-5-bands-verse·Classical verse·The same top transverse line, quantised into four bands by how far it reaches. Longevity METHOD B, in the verse's own numbers.Śārdūlakarṇāvadāna, Pāṇilekhā v. 5 (crit. ed. Zysk 2025)
No observation was supplied for this mark, so nothing is asserted either way. A mark nobody looked for is not a mark that is absent.