The study investigated the use of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) methods to sex type telogen head hairs, and further investigated hair root morphology as it relates to the potential nuclear DNA content of evidence hairs. The study concluded that: (1) FISH does not appear to be a useful forensic test for routine incorporation into hair examination; (2) microscopic hair evaluation and comparison using suitable mounting media should always precede DNA testing; (3) hair examiners should use appropriate (and consistent) dermatologic terminology when describing hair root morphology; (4) telogen hair clubs should not be submitted for nuDNA PCR typing; and (5) anagen/catagen hair bulbs absent translucent sheath tissue are excellent candidates for nuDNA PCR typing. Figures, tables, references