Talk:Human skin color

Claim that dark skin was the original human mode

There is no evidence that proves what skin color ancient Africans had. We just know they did not have the mutations present in Europeans for pale skin. They still had the capacity for a wide range of skin colors. We know that even in the heart of Africa we have populations referred to as Khoisanid who have some of the most ancient lineages and still were considerably lighter than Bantu populations. Furthermore, Bantu populations have also shown signs of skin color selectivity to get darker.

So skin color could have had a wide range in ancient Africa as it does today. Remember that those ancient Africans had to shed hair and progressively darken as they went from hairy apes to naked hominids. How dark they went would depend on area, time, diet, and environment. It is erroneous to assume all Africans went all the way to very dark skin and then some lightened back to somewhere in between. We just don't know at this time.

A letter I got confirming this by a geneticist who is studying genes and skin color

quote From: Heather Norton Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 5:29 PM Subject: Re: Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians

Thanks for your interest in my work. Before I get to your questions, I think that I need to clear up a bit of confusion about these pigmentation genes, particularly some confusion about the use of the terms gene and allele. First, yes, these genes exist in other primates. That is to say, primates have stretches of DNA sequence that produce the same protein in humans and in chimps, and these are usually found in the same corresponding region on their chromosomes. So, it would be correct to say that both humans and chimps, for example, have the gene for ASIP, OCA2, MC1R, etc. When we look at the sequence of individual nucleotides (A, C, G, or T) that make up a particular gene, we may see small differences between chimps and humans. So, for example, at one place in the OCA2 gene chimps might all have a G base, where humans all carry an A in the corresponding position. This is what is known as a fixed difference, and studying fixed differences may help us to understand why humans and chimps differ for certain traits. However, you can imagine that there may be other cases were chimps carry a G at a certain position while some humans carry the G and others carry an A. When we see the same nucleotide being carried in both species (in this case, the G) we call it the ancestral allele. When the nucleotide differs (in this case, the A) we refer to it as the derived allele. The term allele here is used to refer to a different versions of the same gene. So, while chimps and humans have the same pigmentation genes (so do mice, and pigs, and fish), they may carry slightly different versions of that gene. Sometimes we see slightly different versions of a gene within the same species. These different versions may explain some of the physical differences (like skin pigmentation) that we see among individuals. In other cases, though, these differences dont affect the protein that the gene produces, and so they dont seem to explain physical differences. So, onto your questions. The question of the San and Sandawe is an interesting one. We are not sure if the alleles that explain why their pigmentation is so different from neighboring populations reflect new (derived) mutations or if instead maybe they are actually ancestral alleles shared with light-skinned primates. I would say that this is an area of open investigation. As for ASIP and OCA2I think that even if you ignored the contribution of these two genes to pigmentation variation we would still see good range of diversity. For example, genes like SLC24A5 and MATP also have a major impact on phenotype. I would also assume that in the past there was variation in human skin color. It would be unlikely to be as much variation as we see across the human species today, since today modern humans live in a range of environments where different pigmentation types are more or less adaptive. In general, I would say that the pigmentation of early humans, who originated in Africa, was dark to provide protection against the damage that ultraviolet radiation can do. However, when we look at populations in Africa today (or populations living in other places where ultraviolet radiation is strong) we see a wide range of variation in pigmentation. I suspect that if we could go back in time we would probably see similar levels of diversity to those that we see in Africa today. end quote.

In other words, there is no evidence to indicate that the huge variation of skin color already existent in Africa wasn't always there.

This is a South African San: http://www.nma.gov.au/shared/libraries/images/temporary_exhibitions/extremes/extremes_large/africa/a_khoisan_man_northern_cape_south_africa/files/6398/nma.img-ex20042116-262-vi-vs1.jpg

Now the earliest skull we have found is in Ethiopia. But human remains are notorious for not surviving in many environments.

Sarah Tishkoff just finished her decades long DNA study. It turns out that the San bushmen of southern Africa have the most distinct, and therefore oldest, genetic sequences.

Then also consider that the mostly disappeared Bisa Sandawe of Tanzania were markedly lighter than their Bantu neighbors. JCTrevor reported this in 1947, So did Ten Raa. I confirmed this with Imogene Lim, a Japanese anthropologist who lived among them:

quote From: Imogene Lim Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:17 PM Subject: RE: Rock-shelter Use Today: An Indicator of Usandawe Prehistory

If you look at recent photographs, there has been increasing intermarriage between groups. Certainly when I conducted my field work some 20 years ago, there were those who shared strong resemblance to their southern counterparts, the Ju/hoansi and other Bushmen/San, the only other true Khoisan language speakers. After being in the field over a year, I was darker in skin tone than many of the Sandawe in the community where I lived.

Eric Ten Raa who studied among the Sandawe in the early 1960s has photographs in one particular article showing the distinction between the Tehla and Bisa Sandawe. If you have done your reading, you will know that the latter are the ones who exhibit the classic Sandawe phenotype. end quote

This is Imogene Lim. http://www.viu.ca/images/portraits/limi.jpg

So a tanned Japanese woman could be darker than some Africans. Africans with some of the oldest genetic markers in existence. It just goes to show you the huge variety already in Africa. To assume the earliest Africans were as dark as Bantu populations, when we have populations like that of the San, is just that, an assumption. We do not have clear evidence to make such a claim. --Salsassin (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

new theory

What about the new theory that melanin is an anti-infection agent and that rather than people evolving lower melanin in order to let in more light, they did it because they weren't as healthy and so couldn't afford the metabolic cost of melanin production? According to this theory, melanin corresponds to humidity levels (which many viruses and bacteria depend on) instead of light levels. --Ark

Hum, -- never came up in my immunology, antomomy or human evolution classes and I can't find anything about it on Google either. It does sound interesting. Do you have a webpage or better yet a peer-reviewed journal article to point me to for more information? --maveric149, Tuesday, June 11, 2002

Heh. It came up either in Scientific American or New Scientist. Probably sometime in the last year. In the last two years definitely. :)

Basically it was speculation based on some preliminary finding. I don't remember what the finding was though. I just mentioned it because like you said, it's so interesting. -- Ark

Cool I try to find it. It's probably a bit too new and unvarified to include in this article though. --maveric149

I remember seeing a little article in New Scientist at least five and probably ten or more years ago on this. One point that I did remember was the comment about there often being a concentration of melanin around that particular part of the anatomy where, as they say, "the Sun don't shine". This fits with the antiseptic hypothesis, and not with the solar radiation/vitamin D/sunburn theory. Of course, there could be some truth in both theories. --ADM

---

What does this mean?

In general, people with recent ancestors in sunny regions have darker skin than people with recent ancestors in regions that lack much sunlight.

Was the above sentence intended to support idea that acquired characteristics can be inherited? I thought Lysenkoism had been thoroughly discredited. --Ed Poor 19:59 Sep 6, 2002 (UCT)

I think you can get that with usual natural selection arguments. White skin is more susceptible to skin cancer, so you could eliminate them from the gene pool because of that.AstroNomer (Who is not a biologist and is just waving hands)

• I also am not a biologist. However, my understanding is:
  • If you are born light-skinned in a region with intense sunlight levels, your chances of skin cancer are much greater. Ergo genes for fair skin are much less likely to be passed on. There are probably other factors like increased vulnerability to disease as a result that would intensify this.
  • If you are born dark-skinned in a region with low sunlight levels, your body doesn't synthesize as much of a certain nutrient (vitamin D?), which is best catalyzed by sunlight on skin. Ergo, your resistance to disease and such goes down, and again, your genes are far less likely to be passed down through the generations.
• Over many generations this dual selection effect may lead to the grouping of prevalent skin colors according to the amount of sunlight received by, oh, the past few hundred generations in a given locale. -- April

Right, I understand about the "genes being passed on" part. And it accords with ethnographical observations of Northern Europeans being light-skinned and equatorial Africans and Caribbeanns being dark-skinned.

My confusion was about the "recent ancestors" claim in the sentence I first quoted way above. I'd like to revise it so it doesn't give the impression that the process takes place over a couple of generations. Doesn't it take centuries before we start to see any significant differences? --Ed Poor

I see what you mean. Probably he was meaning e.g. african-americans: they have "recent ancestors" from Africa, that were dark skinned because they had had lots of ancestors living there. There is a step missing in the chain.AstroNomer

• Going out on a limb here, with my shaky bio knowledge, but I'd guess that the genes for most skin levels would be present, if not common or commonly expressed, in just about any population. So if two groups of humans colonize a high-sunlight planet and a low-sunlight planet, and then are cut off from intermarriage outside the group, we'd start seeing significant changes between the populations in... well, if you take a "generation" as about 20 years... at a very rough guess, maybe a few centuries?

• I suspect that by "recent" the person was thinking "hundreds or thousands of years in the same place" as opposed to, say, ten thousand to a hundred thousand years, which is (I think) the scale of many major population migrations. Add a lot of caveats that I could be talking complete nonsense here, 'cause I'm far from expert. :) -- April

I thought of "recent ancestors" as not more than 4 generations back, like my great-great-grandparents, who are Polish and Russian Jews (on my mother's side). Thanks for the scientific help. I think I have enough information to edit the article.

---

What means "The lighter skin of women results either from sexual preference or from the higher calcium needs of women during pregnancy and lactation."??? Can I see the ``sexual preference of a woman in her skin color?

There has been no proven correlation between lighter skin and gender, in any culture or race. Beauty standards in the modern age, a byproduct of colonialism, are purely cultural.

In addition, Vitamin D in high levels is toxic, such that people with melanin were at a biological advantage in high-sunlight areas in their ability to regulate, thus prevent over-production of, the vitamin.

  -M

What he is trying to say is that women with lighter skin are supposedly prettier. He should look at Beyonce Knowles and reconsider. Cameron Nedland 03:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a school of thought suggesting that light skin, blond hair, and pale blue eye color arose in part among European populations during the last Ice Age as a way for females to attract males. The lighter-skinned females stood out from the others and were more "exotic," hence more desirable as mates. There is solid evidence that there was a gender imbalance in Europe at that time (for varous reasons), and that strong males were in shorter supply. So in addition to other environmental factors selecting for light skin, demographics may have also played a role. Sociobiologists can see in populations today that small numbers of different looking females are viewed as particularly attractive sex partners by dominant males. On study in Finland showed that while racist views were quite prevelant in the overrall population, the small population of young black and asian women resident there received a higher degree of sexual advances from Finnish males than the average young ethnic Finn did; the "exotic" theory at work.

In general, however, given the smaller number of very light-skinned females in most societies, it will be these who are considered the most attractive, Beyonce notwithstanding.

Recent studies on internet pornography tend to support this. Both black and white males are drawn in far greater numbers to websites featuring light-skinned, white girls. There are, of course, sites featuring Latinas and black women, but far fewer. None of this is politically correct, of course, and most scientists won't touch these issues. I work in a related field myself, and I admit that I won't sign my name here because of the fear of being labelled racist, etc.

I don't think any of that means that light-skinned females are "better" than dark-skinned females, etc. That's not what it's about. And cultural factors are obviusly involved too. But there is quite a bit of rather dry evidence to support that in general, males in most populations are somewhat "hard-wired" to prefer light-skinned gals over dark-skinned ones.

Let's put it this way. As any biologist will tell you (and I'm one), all animals use visual markers and signals to attract and select mates, and obervation of any species will identify certain physical characteristics, especially marking and color patterns, that invariably attract more attention. Humans are no different. Difficult for us to talk about or admit given the way that "race" has negatively impacted so many people throughout the world. But from a cold scientific standpoint, it's true.

no dear its not true white people like whites and dark people like darks naturally. asians prefer asians but when whites are always humiliating black people(dont deny it )and all other people like asians and other races and due to increasing domination of your culture(north america and europ)by goods,advertisements,movies etc yes they prefer their child be one of you and belong to you (better race) sorry im very frank but just look at mis world selection they selected a blond girl in my country no one think that she is better than others or even beauteful.my people (in your opinion of cours uncivilized!!!)dont like very thin and very white girls they call them corps (you know dead body is bloodless and white!)and light eyes have always been the symptom of villainy! sorry i dont want to insult you but it was like this.

---

Why/how is it that the Tasmanian Aborigine, a population isolated for thousands of years so far south, retained such dark skin? Tasmania is as close to the South Pole as Southern Europe, mid-North-America, or Japan is from the North, and the populations of those areas were much lighter. -- stewacide 20:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm a tad confused as well. For vitamin D production, the amount of time spent in the sun is trivial -- say, about 15 minutes/day, for a light-skinned person. For a dark skin person, they might need 6 times that -- Say, an hour and a half. Thus, the skin-color/vitamin D link seems a tad weak. I believe Darwin wanted to chalk skin color up to sexual selection. The Tasmanians have been isolated in Tasmania for thousands of years -- the disappearance of the Tasmanian-Australia landbridge is known. At the same time, the retreat of the glaciers from northern Europe happened later. But the typical northern European has light skin, Tasmanians have dark skin.

The climate in Tasmania is only marginally colder than the coastal temperate areas of mainland Australia (for example Melbourne and Sydney) and Aboriginals on Mainland Australia mainly lived in those cooler temperate areas and not in the deserts until Europeans arrived.

Article explains examples such as Tasmanian skin color when it mentions the Aleut exception; Tasmania is a small island, so the indigenous diet was likely high in fish, which canceled out the need for light skin to produce vitamin D. Also, the idea that Aboriginals in Australia didn't live in the desert until the Europeans arrived is erroneous. Archaeological evidence puts occupation of the desert at several thousand years.DayBaye (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the skin color link appropriate?

The external link to Asian skin color should be deleted. The site that the link takes you to is not a scholarly source, but merely a joke-website made to ridicule asians. -- 70.105.1.158 (from the PageHistory)

• I changed the description of the site. Is that better? I looked at 1) the linked page and 2) other pages on that site. The person who put up the site has a definite point of view. I would summarize that point of view as follows. There is nothing special about Asian skin color or Non-Asian skin color. In fact, the variations in Asian skin color are caused by variations in the same combinations of three parameters that cause variations in the skin color of people everywhere. The three parameters are: 1) vegetation reducing UV radiation striking human skin over many generations, 2) persistence of snow cover increasing the UV radiation striking human skin over many generations, and 3) closeness to the equator that increases UV flux over many generations. Would you agree? Also, please sign the end of your postings with 4 ~ marks so that the computer will insert your signature and time of your posting. Thanks. --Rednblu 01:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

van Luschan scale

Felix von Luschan, (1854-1924)

In anthropology, verbal descriptions of skin colors ("white," "yellow," "black," "brown," and "red") were replaced by color-matching methods during the early twentieth century (Olivier 1960, von Luschan 1897). The most popular of these methods was the von Luschan scale, based on the use of colored tablets or tiles of different colors and hues with which the colors of unexposed skin were matched. These and similar matching methods could not be consistently reproduced, however, and were swiftly abandoned when reflectance spectrophotometry was introduced in the early 1950s

[1] dab 11:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Eyes color

Non-white people are only brown-eyed, it's impossible for a non-white person to naturally have non-brown eyes, the only way is to have one white parent, & one non-white, then he/she may earn his white parent's eye-color, which may be blue, green or hazel, but multiracial people are very rarely non-brown-eyed.

Thats far from the truth, their are a lot of dark-skinned people on both sides that Have light eyes. Not that light eyes are anything to admire. --65.188.253.47 01:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you mention anything about 'admiration' of light eyes makes it sound as though you bear some racial or ethnic prejudices. Even if it is only your aesthetic opinion, it could easily be interpretted as derisory to people with light eyes in general. --72.39.204.249 16:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

When I was in India there were people there (that were darker than most blacks) that had blue eyes.Cameron Nedland 16:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Forget it, I'm full Chinese and my right eye is already look hazel while left eye is golden brown.

Person who put that about it being impossible for a non-white to naturally have non-brown eyes, you were greatly misinformed.

Not necessarily. See Indo-Aryan migration, Tocharians and Seres for information on why some "dark-skinned" groups, especially in India and China, may have white admixture. --Jugbo 21:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Mmm. I just noticed this: "not that light eyes are anything to admire." Well, yes, they are. They're a reproductive, or sexual, adaptation, meaning that they confer no environmental advantage, like camouflage or speed, on their carriers, who are rather supposed to look better to the opposite sex because of them. They're similar to art. Whether or not you personally like Michelangelo's David, it was meant to be admired. --Jugbo 15:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

i dont think like you in my country (before haliwood movies )many years before cultural attacks of chalcy people (very white)people admired black eyes

if we are talking about a correlation between eye pigmentation and the concentration of melanin in the skin. I do not believe you have a scientific basis for making that conclusion. The Wikipedia article "Eye color" lists references 12,13, and 14 as material related to this. You may wish to examine those references before making a generalization. While the altering of code in gene OCA2 has impact on skin, hair and eye colour, it is not sufficient to conclude that a high concentration of melanin in the skin is incompatible with a low concentration in the eyes, and in fact, there are living, human examples to refute your hypothesis. A quick GIS turned up http://www.africancolours.net/media/10929_2_03,%20Miss%20Richard%20Wachira.jpg 72.53.30.175 (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Eye color & Ancestry Debate???

The preference over which eye color is attractive, depends on one's culture (taught beliefs, media portrayals, etc.) and it does not matter to me what eye colors people find attractive. I like dark eyes, as long as they are medium to big in size and have an oval or almond shape. This is because most of the people in my adopted family are gracious and easy to entreat full blooded Native Americans (Choctaws) and I am Ethiopian. The indigenous people of Ethiopia in my opinion are the best looking in the world as are Native Americans.But every country/ethnicity can have beautiful looking and symmetrical people regardless of skin/ hair or eye color. Beautiful is beautiful, Period!:))

I would also like to add that brown (dark eyes) are dominant and are seen in more than 90% of the world's total population (look at Indigenous Africans, Asians, Australians, North and South Americans). Dark eyes have more melanin and greater resistance to solar radiation and are less liely to get sun damaged in warm climates. Light eyes (blue, gray, green, etc) are recessive and seen mostly in indigenous European peoples, due to the fact that Europe had abundant snow and was very cold. Dark eyes would have been susceptible to snow blindness. As for skin color determining eye color, usually melanin rich complexions (by melanin I mean eumelanin--- brown and black skin tones)are usually paired with dark eyes (brown or black). And non pigmented peoples have blue, gray and green eyes. However, in areas where genetic mixing was common ( places colonized by Europe ---- West Africa, North and South America, and parts of India) generational mixing led to different phenotypes uncommon to Europeans, Africans, and AMericans. Past genetic mixing, can make it where 2 parents (from the present---who might both have dark eyes and dark skin) have children with dark skin and light eyes. Simply because a great great grand parent was of European descent or had mixed ancestry. Duh! Vice versa, two parents with phenotypes--- blonde hair, blue eyes--- can have dark haired and dark eyed kids. Because one or both parents carried alleles for pigmented features (maybe from past generations intermarrying with non Euro people).

• • • • • Duncan

Hexidecimal RGB Values

Are there any rules for getting a flat, decent looking flesh-tone with a program that uses #RGB, such as Flash, Fireworks, or even MS Paint? i heard there is a rule for good skin-tones,but i can't find it... Thanks, -Grim- 22:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That depends on what color space you are working in. An RGB triplet in one color space does not mean the same thing as it does in another. Second, it obviously depends on what race you are talking about. Third, it depends on the lighting conditions. For all these reasons and more, this question does not have an answer. --Adoniscik (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Cutting two dubious "See also" links

, History, Tom Irwin.

The above two links were inserted by User:80.46.154.123 at this edit. Going out of my way to assume that this prank was done in Good faith, I am leaving this record for someone to revert if generic History and "Tom Irwin" are renowned experts in Skin color that I cannot find in Google. 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 19:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

latitude

File:Map of skin hue equi.png

Historical data for "native populations" collected by R. Biasutti prior to 1940. Darker shades represent darker skin color.

---

Note however, that "darker shades" of skin color correlate, not with latitude, but with a thousand-year cumulation of 1) total annual UV striking the ground through the cloud cover and 2) lack of sources of Vitamin D in the diet such as from fresh fish. Hence, notice the darker shade of skin color at the equator, comparing South America to Africa--because there is much more cloud cover annually over South America. See text.

it seems strange to say that skin colour is not correlated to latitude but rather to the amount of UV radiation, since clearly the latter is correlated to the former. dab (ᛏ) 19:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• For example, if you look at the map, natives to Africa have much darker skin than natives to South America at the same latitudes. That is because there is much more cloud cover over South America than over Africa. Good suggestion!  :) I will add an explanatory note to the caption to make your point clear. ---Rednblu | Talk 23:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You'll need an entire subsection soon. But I don't agree with your interpretation. Note that the "natives" of South America immigrated some 20k years ago, the Australians some 70k years ago, while the Africans were in Africa "forever". So even if there was as much Sun in South America as in Africa, people may not have been there long enough to adapt. Your explanation is simplistic, as if humans were uniformly distributed on the Earth at one time and then started to adapt. Human migration is at least as important a factor for explaining the patterns. e.g. the pink corner in South Africa is not due to a permanent cloud-cover, but almost certainly to inter-marriage with immigrants. dab (ᛏ) 08:47, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• That's all right. You missed the Jablonski 2000 article. [2] No big deal. 8)) The adaptation takes place in a few thousand years. And the data is only for "Natives" who have been relatively fixed for a thousand years. No intermarriage is in the data. You can compare the raw data in the tables at the back of the Jablonski article to the map. ---Rednblu | Talk 12:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

interesting. although I find it hard to believe. this borders on Lamarckism. Do you mean the map on page 77? I'm sorry. I am not an expert, but I suppose unless the data is cross-referenced to genetic analysis (mitochondrial etc.), the matching of skin shade to latitude is rather pointless. You would have to show that adaptation is quicker than migration, eg. for South Africa. Do they say somewhere that South Americans are lighter because there is less UV there than on similar latitudes in Africa? Anyway, I don't have the time to dig into this right now, so I just assume you are right. dab (ᛏ) 14:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

also, your caption is suggestive that the map should be taken at face value. While it is of course good enough to give a general idea, I was very careful to state on the Image page that it is outdated, and should not be used as an up-to-date reference. dab (ᛏ) 08:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The inuit are probably a poor example, since high latitudes have alternating patterns of extremely high (or at least constant) sunlight followed by almost none. so far the adaptations i'd heard of included the narrow eyes.. though now that i think of it, that's universal mongoloid, so that makes no sense. anyway, i've never seen a 'relatively dark' inuit, so that part doesn't make sense to me.

The Inuits/Eskimos (I'm not racist) were able to survive with their dark skin at northern latitudes because a huge part of their diet, the seal, has a lot of vitamin D.

Cameron Nedland 03:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The Inuit also live in a very bright enviroment--sunlight reflecting off snow is still sunlight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.27.198.172 (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Inuits have darker skin reason: 1. sunlight reflecting off snow is still sunlight 2. Inuits have smaller body 3. Inuits have more vitamin D intake Nagara373 04:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

About that map

I've deleted the above image from the article.

"Be bold." Well, I removed the above map.

When I first saw this image, my first reaction was, "This can't possibly be correct!" I Googled it, and the first thing I consulted was this.[3] I don't know where the information about Basutti's "methodology" and the "use with caution" notation came from (somewhere else here?), but it is terribly improper to present this as factual/credible -- and with no notation whatsoever about its shortcomings/limitations. deeceevoice 07:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User:FrankWSweet's article The Paleo-Etiology of Human Skin Tone that I added to External Links on 6 Dec has discussion of the Biasutti map, its faults, and a couple of updated maps. I don't know the copyright status of the updated maps. Frank did not change the map in the article when he later showed up on Wikipedia; not sure if he didn't notice it, didn't think it was wrong enough to be significant, or if copyright status wasn't sufficient.

answers.com is a Wikipedia mirror and not citable as a non-Wikipedia source. The Wikipedia link for that image is: File:Map of skin hue equi.png which is exactly the image that was referenced by the article, and in the image page's history (not the file history) you can see User:Dbachmann added those cautions. --JWB 13:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

---

The image that was removed in this edit should be restored. The image is a good one.

• An example of the raw data underlying the patterns that the image summarizes can be found in Prof. Jablonski's article, for example.
  1. Those making the measurements of skin color tried to select only subjects whose ancestors had lived in the same general area for thousands of years--thus, minimizing the effects of moving to a different geographical area.
  2. What is measured is underarm skin color where there is minimum tanning.
  3. Underarm skin color is measured by an optical instrument that measures the percentage of light of a standard color that the subject's underarm skin reflects to the standardized photocell. The underarm skin of the whitest person in the sample reflected less than 70% of the incident light.
  4. Underarm skin color correlates, not with latitude, but with the annual intensity of UV radiation striking the ground where people live.
  5. Hence, for example, looking along the equator, one sees that skin color is lighter around the Amazon basin where most sunlight is blocked from striking the ground where people live--by both high vegetation and cloud cover.
• Furthermore, as JWB notes above, the "use with caution" at [4] means nothing to us on Wikipedia because that site merely copied the "use with caution" that has been on Wikipedia for a long time.
• As with any image, it would be good to develop a fifth approximation that fits all the recent data better. But let's not throw out the very good first approximation that the deleted image is!

That any reader has the response "That can't possible be right" is appropriate. Many people do not know that the image is basically right. --Rednblu 16:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Rednblu, because I know I don't know everything, I googled the map before deleting it. What caused me immediately to be skeptical of the map are two things: the 1) the shading for Lower Egypt is the same as for Saudi Arabia and portions of the Maghreb, 2) and it is also the same for the area occupied by South Africa and Namibia. This calls into question the population samples utilized in the map's preparation (if not Biasutti's fundamental powers of reasoning). Did Biasutti leave Egypt's major cities (where the majority of Arabs are concentrated) and examine the true Egyptians? The peasants? Highly doubtful. The Fellahin as a group are quite swarthy and downright obviously Negroid-looking the farther south one travels. (To Biasutt's credit, the area occupied by Egypt does appear to be darker to the south.) The map refers to "native" populations, and the methodology stated above maintains the subject populations had lived in the areas for "thousands of years." Um, 'scuse me. Stretching that "thousands" to hyyperbolic proportions, that might work for someone with an "I'm doin' the the elitist tourist route 'cuz I don't wanna get my hands dirty" approach for the Arab and Arabized populations in Lower Egypt's major cities, since the Arabs overran the area in the 7th century A.D. But how on earth can one say that with a straight face about South Africa? The Boers didn't get there until 400 years before Biasutti did, and I haven't gone around sniffin' up under people's armpits, but I've never met an indigene from South Africa who was as fair-skinned as an Italian. Anyone? (How 'bout you Rednblu?) Even if you want to quibble about Lower Egypt, the South Africa/Namibia representation is glaringly inaccurate, not to mention mind-blowingly counterintuitive. I can't even begin to rationalize how he came up with a Maghreb/Arab skin tone for, say, the Xhosa, Zulu or Ndebele of the region.

Even if Biasutti lazily decided not to examine the native populations and simply fudge the data there as he did with the northern Maghreb, it still makes no earthly sense. It seems to me that not only did Biasutti take the tourist route, not bothering to get outside the Cairo city limits, but he also failed to venture beyond the Boer and European-controlled areas in South Africa/Namibia. Cutting him some slack, this is somewhat understandable. After all, many are reluctant to sacrifice creature comforts for the sake of knowledge. Sill, I'm puzzled. It seems to me not even a staunch supporter of the racist Boer regime would dare claim with a straight face that Europeans had been there since ancient times. Such a bald-faced absurdity then would call into question the integrity of the entire effort. Yet Biasutti has done so. And even more mind-blowing, his b.s. seems to have gone right over people's heads.

I mean am I missing something here? Have I lost my mind? What are you white folks thinking? Someone (anyone? how 'bout you, Rednblu?) wanna try explaining to me how I'm wrong -- because I "do not know that the image is basically right"? deeceevoice 17:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

you seem sure this map is incorrect, but did you take quantitative measurements of light reflectivity under fellahin armpits? the renderings we have of fellah don't seem to be all that dark-skinned

Justforasecond 18:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Fille Fellahin" of Egypt.

Characteristically, JFAS, yours is an utterly unhelpful comment that sheds absolutely no light on the situation, imparts no information, reflects no knowledge. deeceevoice 12:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I can't believe I am winding up defending the damn map, but after reading your specific points, I think you actually are missing a couple of things. The pink shading (18-21) for Egypt and Western Cape / Southern Namibia corresponds to a pretty dark color, even if far from the darkest. People of the Arabian peninsula can also be fairly dark, so I don't find this correspondence too far-fetched, but if data was missing for any of these, it's probably for Sa`udi Arabia, as there was not much travel in or out of there in Biasutti's time, while Egypt and South Africa were both accessible destinations. I do notice that all of Sau`di Arabia except the south is the same pink, whereas my understanding is that people of the Gulf are darker than those of the center and northwest, unless Biasutti is trying to project back to before the Abbasid-area slave trade (see Zanj Rebellion). The revised Figure 11-3 on Frank's page does push its 'medium light' slightly farther south into Sa`udi Arabia. [5]

The pink at the Cape is for the Khoisan, not the Boers, who would be white (below 12) as Northern Europe is. The pink (18-21) is also two steps darker than Italy, which is the lightest green (12-15), and darker than the Maghreb, which is 12-15 north of the Atlas, and 15-18 (miscolored on map as below 12) until well into the Sahara. And the map shows central and eastern South Africa and the Xhosa, Zulu or Ndebele as dark brown (27-30). --JWB 18:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. The map is still noticeably off. The Khoikhoi are nowhere near the same color as Arabs. And if the map represented the Arab slave trade, then all of the Arabian peninsula would be the darker colors represented in the two lower segments. Besides, according to the methodology, the shades represent indigenous peoples. Further, there is ample evidence to suggest that the people of Egypt have changed considerably over the centuries as a result of miscegenation -- since dynastic times forward. So, how are the indigenous Africans of Egypt supposed to be as pale as all of the Saudi peninsula, Malaysia and Southeast Asia? The map is seriously flawed and shouldn't be presented as fact. deeceevoice 12:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The map doesn't reflect recent work at all. Anything on race pre-1950s should be viewed with strong suspicion, especially if based on something as suspicious as the von Luschan scale. The map could be used for historical representations of work on race but shouldn't be used for modern conceptions at all. If we really want something about skin color distributions, there are modern works on the subject which are far more reliable. --Fastfission 21:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yah, sure. Which one of those maps is out of copyright? Do you know of one that is better than the current image? --Rednblu 22:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission, what maps are those? If you have access to them, are they eligible for reproduction here? If there's something better/more recent, then, by all means, they should be used. deeceevoice 12:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Inuits and Saami have darker skin than Scandinavians because they have smaller body (than Scandinavians).

---

Surely you are right that the deleted image should be updated to include more detailed recent data. But would you agree that the deleted image represents the data in Jablonski's article fairly well? --Rednblu 18:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. There are only broad and irrelevant similarities (Africa is dark, Europe is light, Asia in in between), but if you look at any individual region (such as Europe) there are major differences. In any case, the Jablonski article does not contain any full-scale maps which are meant to be actual representations of skin color distributions, that I can see, but only different predictions and simulations. --Fastfission 21:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Note that the "natives" of South America immigrated some 20k years ago, the Australians some 70k years ago, while the Africans were in Africa "forever"." While perhaps strictly true this statement is highly misleading in the context it is being stated. Most of sub-Saharan Africa was peopled by Khoisan prior to the Bantu expansions which were even more recent than the crossing of the Bering Strait or the peopling of Australia. This is highly relevant since, while bones are not proof of pigmentation, there is a significant difference in skin tone between Bantu and Khoisan people today. This suggests that if the (more recent than the two events you cite) Bantu pastoralist expansion had not occurred most of sub-Saharan Africa would probably be lighter skinned, perhaps not dissimilar to the natives of the Americas, or at least closer to them than it is 80.229.27.11 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No such thing as black skin mutation

To do a section on "The origins of black skin" is backward it should be "The origins of white skin".The article misstates the fact that the mutation is from dark skin and kinky hair to white skin and straight hair,the first humans were black. the mutation is of the other races.

The skin of the chimpanzee, beneath their hair, is white --JPotter 19:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Assuming that ancient humans and chimpanzees had the same skin color, the genes for darker skin would have to be a mutation.

Cameron Nedland 03:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Vehgah Not all chimps have "white" skin [http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/img/chimpanzee.jpg

link]

All of them except Bonobos.

--65.188.253.47 21:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW the article is about *Human* skin color not chimps.

As far as I know, we can't know for sure which was the color of the first Homo sapiens. It wasn't necessarily black, just because of the African origin, neither the same as some of the colors of chimpanzee skin. It could be even redish or purplish like orangutans, for all we know (I think). Genes determining black skin, as those which determine any skin color, arose by mutation, anyway.--Extremophile (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And, by the way, even these apparently dark skinned chimpanzees have fair, unpigmented skin under the body hair. The "bald" spots are sometimes pigmented, varying from subspecies to subspecies, probably according to sun exposure in each typical habitat too, I guess. Human dark skin is ancestral, though, to human white skin; it's not as if white people evolved separately in Europe, never having dark skinned ancestors. --Extremophile (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"When Hominids evolved relative hairlessness (the most likely function of which was to facilitate perspiration)" Is it not true that hominids don't have relative hairlessness over other great apes, rather we have a similar number of hairs but each hair is much less coarse in modern humans? Perhaps "... relatively finer hair ..." or similar would be preferable? Or is this venturing too far from lay english?81.141.18.176 (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Rev. Moon quote

Why is there a quote by Sun Myung Moon in the article? it seems totally random and doesn't belong, there are many quotes about skin color out there, why should this be included in the article? I'm removing it, unless someone can offer a valid reason to keep it.--Kewp (t) 20:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

CONTRADICTION

This article says that skin color is determined by a set of genes. Later, it says women have lighter skin than men. Since the genes are the same whether the person is male or female, the article contradicts itself, or at the very least, leaves out an additional determinant for skin color besides genes, one which is tied into gender.

Um, "gender" is "tied" to genes. JPotter 15:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it means that a person's genes will affect the type of skin pigmentation; black, white, etc. but the gender will affect the degree of pigmentation within the different shades of skin.

-Tim-THobern 00:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether either statement is correct there is no actual contradiction between them. People are either male or female BECAUSE they have different genes, specifically either an X or Y chromosome. An X or Y chromosome is a bunch of genes. There are plenty of examples of traits that vary in frequency between the sexes and are also believed to be entirely genetic, forms of colour blindness and hemophilia for example. 80.229.27.11 (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No contradiction. The lighter skin in females is related to their higher need of vitamin D during gestation. --Salsassin (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm stupid, and I have a question about skin color and genetics.

When I was born, and for most of my childhood, I had light skin. But then as time I went on, my skin began to darken (because of not using sunscreen), and, although this sounds bad, I started to become a bit depressed. I like the look of light skin over dark skin, but I'm not a racist as I don't discriminate based on skin color.

Let me get to my question. If I had a child with a light-skinned woman, would our child still come out dark because of the darkening of my skin, or does that not tie into the genes that I'll pass onto my child? I'm guessing that it won't because I inherited most of my mother's physical traits (with the exception of a few noted below), but recessive genes aren't eliminated but supressed, leaving them a chance to spring back up in another generation.

It sounds like a dumb question, and it is, but it's one that I can't answer, and I don't know how to search for this specific question on Google. But because I don't talk to anyone on my father's side of the family (my father is dark-skinned), and because I felt out of place at most family gatherings (for being darker than everyone on my mother's side of the family), I was hoping maybe the chances of me having a light-skinned baby would still be really high to keep my child from feeling alienated like I did.

Here's some extra information about me in case this would affect anything:

- I adopted most of my mother's physical features except hair. Everyone on her side of the family has straight brown hair, and I have curly black hair.

- My mother is between 12 - 15 on that skin color scale up there, and my father is between 27 - 30. I was born somewhere in between 12 - 15, but now I'm in between 24 - 27.

My first response was, "Jeeze. This guy is really sad/obsessed." The second was to delete this all together -- but I thought better of it. (Should it go? It's got no relevance to Wikipedia at all.) deeceevoice 10:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Something you do during your lifetime (like sun exposure) should not affect the genes you pass on to your children. See Lamarckianism for more on that. --JWB 20:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's sad, I know, but it's something I think about quite a bit. Thanks, JWB.

Please remember that the talk page is for discussion of ways to improve the article itself, not general discussion of the article's topic. Ketsuekigata (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of shelter or caves

There seems to be no mention of the use of shelter or caves having an effect on pigment. For example if people who leave in a very cold area live in caves or shelters most of the day and only venture outside to hunt then surely they would lose their pigmentation very quickly. But then if they live in a temperate area that is not extremely hot or cold then the use of shelters would have a similar effect.

"Yellow" skin

I read a first year Biology textbook a few months ago which said that the reason why far Easterners have yellowish skin tone is due to a second factor determining their skin colour, namely carotene. However, this article does not mention this at all.

Was the claim incorrect? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 16:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering this too, as I've seen carotene cited as a human skin pigment in past readings, and Asian skin tone attributed to it. This article[6] citing a recent study by Anatomist Edward Allen Edwards of Harvard and Physicist Seibert Quimby Duntley of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, confirms that carotene is indeed a component of human skin pigmentation, though it says "carotene is not what makes Orientals yellow. Normal persons of all races have roughly the same amounts of carotene."--Ericjs (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Info on cancer

This article omits two very important- though little know facts about skin color and sun cancer.

First being this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5219752.stm

I think this is reffering to the fact that pitch black skin compared to pale white skin filters only twice less UV radiation than light skin. That's a rather sizable difference, but minute for a color on a wholly different side of the spectrum- not to mention the skin colors inbetween.

And of course this:

http://www.mercola.com/2000/sep/3/vitamin_d_cancer.htm http://www.myhealthsense.com/F020604_somesun.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5334534.stm

A better vitamin D metabolism and the like would obviously correct for much of this though.

I'm not sure how to frame these into the main article, but they're very important pieces.

i heared...

I heared that the reason why Africans have Black/Dark brown Skin and Europeans have White-ish skin was because of genetic mutations due to the change of temperature... like when Homo Sapiens Sapiens moved out of Africa, their skin colUr changed due to the change in temperature.

skin color

single-orgin hypothesis: lived only in Africa

dual-orgin hypothesis: lived Africa and Europe

Nagara373 03:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's Asia, not Europe. As the dual origin hypthesis, link 06:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Modern human first lived later in Asia than in Europe. As the single-orgin hypothesis, lived only in Africa, dual-orgin hypothesis, Africa and Europe, not Asia. Asia-orgin is multi-orgin hypothesis, not dual-orgin hypothesis.

Nagara373 05:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Asia orgin is not dual origin hypthesis. dual-orgin hypthesis in Asia are immigrate from Europe (Eurasian and African). The single-orgin hypthesis, people moved from Africa to Europe, then people moved from Europe to Asia.

Africa -> Europe -> Asia -> America Nagara373 05:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

interbred:

in Europe: Homo Sapiens + Neanderthal

in Asia: Homo Sapiens + (Homo E + Neanderthal) Nagara373 05:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

retain heat

Men with lighter skin/hair/eye color can retain heat than either men with darker skin/hair/eye color or women with any skin/hair/eye color. Because men with lighter skin/hair/eye color are bigger and stockier than either men with darker skin/hair/eye color or women with any skin/hair/eye color. Nagara373 05:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Color of dandruff

Please add to the article if the color of dandruff is related to the color of the skin, or if (the differences are only skin deep☺, and) it will always be the same no matter what race. Also mention it on the dandruff page. Jidanni 11:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)==

Colour of cave figures

This seems like weak evidence for a recent shift in skin colour among Europeans. Is it not possible that the figures only appear dark so that they are contrasted to the relative paleness of the stone?

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes over lifespan?

Leaving aside exceptional cases like Michael Jackson, what is known about changes in skin coloration over an individual's lifespan? I know that infants of African descent are often born with fairly pale skin, which darkens over the first few months of their lives. And I believe that old people's skin sometimes lightens, but I'm not sure whether that's due to lessened exposure to sunlight or something else. Is there any scientific account of these changes in skin coloration? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

lighter feet and hands

Why do many (all?) people with darker skin have paler skin on the inside of their hands and the bottom of their feet? People with lighter skin don't seem to have paler skin in these areas. Herorev (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason must be that the scin there is different to "normal" skin. For example, you have no hairs there, different somatosensory receptors and stuff like that. Dunno the English name, in German this kind of skin is called "Leistenhaut". It probably lacks of pigmentation as well, that's why the skin is much paler in people with dark scin compared to the rest of their body. But it might be that it's still a little darker than a pale person's inside of the hand. I guess the contrast between the lighter parts and the darker parts of the scin play a role so you get the impression as if the difference was very big. --EnduroLM (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)enduroLM

Inaccurate map

The map in the beginning of the article is obvsiously fake and not reflective of reality about North-Africa and the Arabian peninsula at least.

Indeed, according to this map Saharan Maghrebis (Northwest Africans) are as light skinned as Scandinavians, they even appear on the map to be lighter skinned than Northern Maghrebis and Southern Europeans like Iberians, Italians, and Greeks.

As for Yemen and Western Oman in Arabia, their people are not known to be as dark as Sub-Saharan Africans or darker than them as the map pretends.

i agree the map is very dubious and as stated underneath it may be inaccurate so why have it up?--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the image is inappropriate. It says in the caption that it's based on pre-1940's data, and is "not entirely accurate". In the image description, it says the following:

Use with caution; The best known of these maps is that composed by the Italian geographer Renato Biasutti, which was based on von Luschan's chromatic scale. This map has gained broad circulation in several widely distributed publications (Barsh 2003, Lewontin 1995, Roberts 1977, Walter 1971), despite the fact that, for areas with no data, Biasutti simply filled in the map by extrapolation from findings obtained in other areas [1].

So why is it presented in this article as an image that it is out of date, rather than non-scientific, which is what it seems to be? Ketsuekigata (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

it seems there is starting to be a consensus for removal of this outdated map--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Black skin may enhance the body’s natural immune system

Black skin may enhance the body’s natural immune system, and provide better protection against disease than white skin. Evidence shows that melanization of skin and other tissues form an important component of the innate immune defense system (Mackintosh, 2001; Nosanchuk and Casadevall, 2006).

SEE FULL ARTICLE HERE: http://www.africaresource.com/content/view/479/236/

--70.68.179.142 (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Graphical representation of skin tones

This article needs more information about the individual skin tone categories as well as a graphical representation of skin tones either through the use of just colored blocks, or actual images of human skin.

I came here looking for information about my skin tone, being slightly olive. And while there is an article for olive skin tones on wikipedia (which is in dire need of more information btw), the different tones are not mentioned or linked here in the main article. The article mentions the range (from near black to pink), but what if I want to know if I'm pink, yellow, olive, beige, brown, dark brown, black or some other tone?

63.139.220.200 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)TC

Migration and skin colour

According to this article, dark skin got lighter as people migrated north. If people of light skin migrated from say northern Europe to hot sunny equatorial regions, would their skin and hair darken genetically from birth? And if so, how many years/centuries would this take. Thank you Chwyatt (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

that's very hypothetical, but if it did, it would take tens of millennia. It did, after all, take some 30,000 years for the skin to turn light after people migrated north. dab (𒁳) 19:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, just wondered how long environmental factors would change human physiology Chwyatt (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

names of Fitzpatrick types

Yes, the common names of the "white" types I to IV, viz. "Celtic", "Nordic", "average Caucasian" and "Mediterranean" hark back to terms in scientific racism (Celtic race, Nordic race, Caucasian race, Alpine race Caucasian race, Mediterranean race) which (gasp) were in turn inspired by phenotypes, especially skin colour. I.e., the terminology has been put back on its feet, instead of designating "races" now designating simply skin shades commonly found in the populations mentioned. It is interesting how some of these names are shunned by the politically correct, especially "Nordic", but apparently also "Celtic", while others aren't, clearly because the name hasn't been stigmatized enough by association with scientific racism. I would like to point out that de:Hauttyp in all innocence mentions the "ethnic" shorthand for the types. They are useful simply because they are more mnemonic than roman numerals. Nobody claims that you "are a Celt" if you are type I, this is hopefully understood by any intelligent reader. --dab (𒁳) 17:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No clear correlation with multiple sclerosis

Quoting from an article's abstract, "The prevalence of multiple sclerosis in the world: an update."

The rarity of MS among Samis, Turkmen, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Kyrgyzis, native Siberians, North and South Amerindians, Chinese, Japanese, African blacks and New Zealand Maoris, as well as the high risk among Sardinians, Parsis and Palestinians, clearly indicate that the different susceptibilities of distinct racial and ethnic groups are an important determinant of the uneven geographic distribution of the disease.

These people have varying degrees of skin coloration, but African blacks and Maoris are clearly dark skinned and yet are listed within the low risk, at the same time that the high-hisk group also does not have an overall pattern of dark skin. Judging by this abstract alone, the pattern seems to be more likely the opposite, if any. --Extremophile (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is written like a conversation between undergrad students; not very encyclopedic at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.144.115 (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Specious claim

I removed the following claim:

"The skin cancer connection is probably of secondary importance, since skin cancer usually kills only after the reproductive age and therefore does not exert much evolutionary selection pressure."

This is (a) speculation and uncited, (b) probably false. A genetic predisposition to dying with even a modest chance of 1 in 1000 before reproductive age relative to another type, as with skin cancer, is in fact an incredibly strong evolutionary selection pressure and would be a strong influence on genetics. I don't know enough to comment on what's more important, folate or skin cancer, but the notion that skin cancer is insignificant is absolutely wrong. Graft | talk 22:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that staying around after reproductive age obviously has survival value for offspring; that's why we have grandparents around. Graft | talk 22:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)