First Americans Arrived Recently, Settled Pacific Coast, DNA Study Says
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Jack Linthicum - 11 Feb 2007 15:59 GMT The oldest human bones found in a North American site belonged to Arlington Man (actually woman) found on Santa Rosa Island and dated to 13,000 ybp. The Channel Islands are an area of Chumash occupation.
News Front Page > The Genographic Project First Americans Arrived Recently, Settled Pacific Coast, DNA Study Says Stefan Lovgren for National Geographic News February 2, 2007
A study of the oldest known sample of human DNA in the Americas suggests that humans arrived in the New World relatively recently, around 15,000 years ago.
The DNA was extracted from a 10,300-year-old tooth found in a cave on Prince of Wales Island off southern Alaska in 1996.
The sample represents a previously unknown lineage for the people who first arrived in the Americas.
The findings, published last week online in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, shed light on how the descendants of the Alaskan caveman might have spread.
Comparing the DNA found in the tooth with that sampled from 3,500 Native Americans, researchers discovered that only one percent of modern tribal members have genetic patterns that matched the prehistoric sample.
Those who did lived primarily on the Pacific coast of North and South America, from California to Tierra del Fuego at the southernmost tip of South America (see map).
This suggests that the first Americans may have spread through the New World along a coastal route.
Brian Kemp, a molecular anthropologist who sequenced the DNA, said the discovery underlines the importance of genetic research in understanding human migration.
"I think there's a lot of information in these old skeletons that's going to help us clarify the timing of the peopling of the Americas and perhaps where Native Americans originated in Asia," said Kemp, a research associate at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee.
On Your Knees Cave
When and how the first people came to the Americas has been a subject of intense debate.
The prevailing theory has been that the first to arrive descended from prehistoric hunters who walked across a thousand-mile (1,600- kilometer) land bridge from Asia to Alaska.
(See a map of human migration.)https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ genographic/atlas.html
This migration probably occurred at least 15,000 years ago-the oldest human remains discovered so far are 13,000 years old-but some scientists have proposed that the first Americans arrived up to 40,000 years ago.
The Alaskan tooth was discovered in a cavern called On Your Knees Cave, named by the explorer who first crawled inside it.
Using material taken from the tooth, Kemp isolated fragments of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed down from mothers to their offspring, and Y chromosome DNA, which is passed from father to son.
>From a genetic database of 3,500 Native Americans, Kemp found 47 individuals in North and South America who exhibited the same genetic markers as the caveman. Some of the samples were drawn from living people and others from ancient bones.
He then compared the tooth DNA with the matching, modern samples and tracked the mutations that had occurred in that DNA over time.
By measuring the rate of mutation, Kemp found that so-called molecular evolution-the process by which genetic material changes over time-had taken place two to four times faster than researchers believed mtDNA could evolve.
That, Kemp said, suggests people entered the Americas within the last 15,000 years, because the DNA has evolved too fast for the arrival to have occurred any earlier.
"I would say that humans were probably not here much before that date," said Kemp. "A 15,000-year-old entry is [also] much more consistent with the archaeological record."
Genetic Markers
All of the mtDNA lineages among Native Americans are associated with five founding lineages believed to have originated in Asia.
But the caveman DNA turned out to be an independent founding lineage.
Of the 47 samples that matched the tooth DNA, 4 were from descendants of Chumash Indians living along California's central coast.
"The distribution of people exhibiting this [genetic] type today are all distributed in the western Americas," Kemp said.
"More or less the individuals are smack down the coast. It's a very neat western distribution."
John Johnson, an archaeologist and ethnohistorian at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History in California, collected the Chumash DNA samples.
To Johnson, the matching of the Chumash samples to the On Your Knees Cave man is indirect evidence of an ancient coastal migration that may have occurred very rapidly.
"We're interested in who were those first people to arrive here at the Pacific coast," Johnson said.
"I believe the Chumash descended from a very early coastal migration that resulted in the distribution of people down to the tip of South America."
Fishing Cultures?
But where did these coastal migrants come from?
DNA samples of people living in Japan and northeast Asia show some of the genetic mutations found in the cave-tooth and Chumash samples.
"I think that's a clue that there could be a genetic connection," Johnson said.
He said the Chumash ancestors may have been skilled fishers before they arrived in the Americas.
"Your techniques for exploiting coastal resources are easily [transferable] and something that maybe can allow you to migrate more quickly than people who are hunters and gatherers, who must get used to new environments as they move into uncharted territory," Johnson said.
"I think that may have allowed a more rapid migration along the Pacific margins of the Americas."
Kemp, meanwhile, said rapidly advancing DNA technology will help scientists piece together the story of the first Americans.
"No expert in morphology could look at the bones and say this person resembles a Tierra del Fuego person. It was only the DNA that could seal the case," Kemp said.
"This really highlights the importance of adding a molecular component to the study of these really ancient remains."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070202-human-migration.html?sour ce=rss
Uwe Müller - 11 Feb 2007 17:08 GMT > snip >
> By measuring the rate of mutation, Kemp found that so-called molecular > evolution-the process by which genetic material changes over time-had [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 15,000 years, because the DNA has evolved too fast for the arrival to > have occurred any earlier.
> snip > The first paragraph boils down to something like: all dates arrived at via genetic dating could be divided by 2 or even 4. That would have enormous consequences for the population/repopulation-after-the-ice-age-scenarios in Europe.
The second paragraph seems to imply some doubts about the dating. If the dating is correct, an age of 10300 for the sample, no method of dating given, than the mutation rate should have to be roughly trebled. If the mutation rate is trebled, the amount of genetic change apparent in modern descendants would argue against an aearlier arrival than ca. 15000.
If the dating of the tooth was not correct, the mutation rate may remain unchanged, or could be changed according to personal preferences. There would be no argument against earlier arrivals.
So everything rests on one tooth, and how it was dated. Does anyone know how it was done? A carbon 14 dating could be easily off because of the influence of marine carbon, as they were said to exploit coastal ressources. Was it dated by the date of the layer of extraction?
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Jack Linthicum - 11 Feb 2007 18:40 GMT > > snip > > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Uwe Mueller I can't make a flat statement about the 10,300 ypb date but Lost World p. 178-9 has a sentence "Eventually the 9800 year date had to be modified (for the mandible and pelvis) ...the bone artfact that had first caught Tim Heaton's attention (mandible) turned out to be 10,300 years old." Page 211 says they had a labratory analysis in hand. Carbon 12, 13 and 14 relative proportions seem to be the method used. Later, page 252, Tom Stafford , is cited as the dater of the bones. Collegen is collected and subjected to particle bombardment.
Human remains found On Your Knees Cave ALASKA 9,818 B.P. http://www.bluecorncomics.com/kennwck3.htm
Original article seems to have been in Nature
"Caveman DNA hints at map of migration : Nature The DNA was extracted from teeth on a mandible found in 1996 in On Your Knees Cave, named by the explorer who first crawled inside in 1993. Carbon dating in ..". www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7048/full/436162b.html - Similar pages
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/114082833/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1& SRETRY=0
Research Article Genetic analysis of early holocene skeletal remains from Alaska and its implications for the settlement of the Americas Brian M. Kemp 1 *, Ripan S. Malhi 2, John McDonough 1, Deborah A. Bolnick 3, Jason A. Eshleman 4 5, Olga Rickards 6, Cristina Martinez- Labarga 6, John R. Johnson 7, Joseph G. Lorenz 8, E. James Dixon 9, Terence E. Fifield 10, Timothy H. Heaton 11, Rosita Worl 12, David Glenn Smith 5 1Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235-7703 2Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801 3Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 4Trace Genetics, Inc., A DNAPrint Genomics Company, 4655 Meade Street, Richmond, CA 94804 5Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616 6Department of Biology, Centre of Molecular Anthropology for Ancient DNA Studies, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Italy 7Department of Anthropology, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA 93105 8Laboratory for Molecular Biology, Coriell Institute for Medical Research, Camden, NJ 08103 9Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR), University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309 10Prince of Wales Island Districts, Tongass National Forest, Craig, AK 99921 11Department of Earth Science/Physics, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD 57069 12Sealaska Heritage Institute, One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400, Juneau, AK 99801 email: Brian M. Kemp (brian.m.kemp@vanderbilt.edu)
*Correspondence to Brian M. Kemp, Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University, VU Station B #356050, Nashville, TN 37235-6050, USA Deceased.
Funded by: Office of Polar Programs The National Science Foundation The United States Forest Service Wenner Gren Grant
Keywords mitochondrial DNA · ancient DNA · molecular clock · phylogenetic dispersion · Y-chromosome
Abstract Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA were analyzed from 10,300-year-old human remains excavated from On Your Knees Cave on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska (Site 49-PET-408). This individual's mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) represents the founder haplotype of an additional subhaplogroup of haplogroup D that was brought to the Americas, demonstrating that widely held assumptions about the genetic composition of the earliest Americans are incorrect. The amount of diversity that has accumulated in the subhaplogroup over the past 10,300 years suggests that previous calibrations of the mtDNA clock may have underestimated the rate of molecular evolution. If substantiated, the dates of events based on these previous estimates are too old, which may explain the discordance between inferences based on genetic and archaeological evidence regarding the timing of the settlement of the Americas. In addition, this individual's Y- chromosome belongs to haplogroup Q-M3*, placing a minimum date of 10,300 years ago for the emergence of this haplogroup. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2007. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc. Received: 25 March 2006; Accepted: 7 November 2006
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20050824-9999-lz1c24tooth.html
Dental DNA reveals our ancient roots By Leigh Fenly UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
August 24, 2005
JAMES DIXON / University of Colorado, Boulder A cast of the human jaw found in On Your Knees Cave on Prince of Wales Island in southeastern Alaska. UC Davis researchers have sequenced DNA from two of the teeth - - the oldest ever extracted from ancient American remains
* Politics plagued bones of Kennewick Man
ASHLAND, Ore. - Paleontologist Timothy Heaton was used to finding 35,000-year-old remains of brown bear, black bear, hoary marmot and antelope in On Your Knees Cave, a tight opening tucked in the dense hemlocks of Alaska's vast Tongass National Forest. But on the last day of excavation in 1996, as Heaton was filling a final bag of sediment, he came upon something quite different.
A lower jaw. A pelvic bone. Obsidian worked into a spear point.
Unmistakable evidence of an ancient human.
Since, the effort to tease clues from the 10,300-year-old remains - the oldest ever found in Alaska or Canada - has involved myriad research laboratories, most recently the Molecular Anthropology Lab at UC Davis.
A tooth from On Your Knees Cave Man - wrapped in cotton and shipped via Federal Express - arrived there in 2003. Brian Kemp, a Ph.D. candidate, removed the tooth's crown and hammered out a quarter-gram portion of root. He subjected it to bleach, a decalcifying chemical and a protein-devouring enzyme. With a silica extraction, he got the tooth's DNA to jump out of the solution.
With the same process forensic scientists use to link DNA to criminals, Kemp tricked the purified DNA into copying itself millions of times. The resulting sequences - the oldest DNA ever extracted from human remains in the Americas - revealed some of the old man's secrets.
>From differences in the genetic sequences, Kemp is now able to argue that the cave man's DNA represents a new ancient lineage in North America. Comparing that DNA to modern-day sequences, he also is suggesting changes to some scientists' estimates of the time of the first migrations to the New World.
<more, mostly anecdotal>
prd - 12 Feb 2007 01:33 GMT In sci.archaeology message news:eqnil0$edv$1@online.de by "Uwe Müller" <uwemueller@go4more.de> . . . :
>> snip > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > influence of marine carbon, as they were said to exploit coastal > ressources. Was it dated by the date of the layer of extraction? Their conclusions are not warranted, the 96% confidence interval for the persistence of a founding haplotype is 0.04 = 1/2^N where N = number of halflifes. 2^N = 25 N ~4.5 halflives. If the estimated rate of evolution is 1 event per locus of 9 to 28 ky then the rejectable timings would be
>40 ky + 10,000 years. Therefore the conclusion of the abstact is not scientifically secure and a bad use of statistics. Even if they were using genomic DNA which has 5 times the number of relevent mutations their rejection criteria would be in excess of 15,000 years or more.
Daryl Krupa - 12 Feb 2007 04:59 GMT <snip>
> So everything rests on one tooth, and how it was dated. Does anyone know how > it was done? <snip>
Uwe: "raw" radiocarbon dates on the human remains averaged about 9800 14CBP. A marine reservoir correction of 200 years was applied to that average, based on findings from a comparison of closely-associated marine and terrestrial samples found in the Queen Charlottes (to the south). The corrected age of about 9600 14CBP was calibrated using standeard methods to derive a calendar age of about 10,300 years. That is a reasonable procedure, IMHO.
- Daryl Krupa
Paul Ciszek - 11 Feb 2007 19:39 GMT This doesn't make sense to me. They seem to be saying that almost all native North Americans belong to one of five lineages, but this guy they found doesn't, and only a few costal people are related to him. OK, so how does that mean that all of North America was settled recently? It would seem that the majority of native North Americans have an origin that does not involve this find. If this guy were one of the first arrivals, and any latter arrivals had to wade through his descendents to get to the rest of North America, I would expect his genes to be well distributed. Instead, his descendents are limited to a narrow territory; wouldn't that be a little more consistent with a late arrival whose descendents are outnumbered by those who have been here longer?
 Signature Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror." Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006
Daryl Krupa - 12 Feb 2007 04:55 GMT On Feb 11, 8:59 am, "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The oldest human bones found in a North American site belonged to > Arlington Man (actually woman) found on Santa Rosa Island and dated to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for National Geographic News > February 2, 2007 <snip>
> The DNA was extracted from a 10,300-year-old tooth found in a cave on > Prince of Wales Island off southern Alaska in 1996. <snip>
Date on Arlington Springs human remains found on Santa Rosa island: 10,970 +/- 80 BP (12,980 cal BP). Age given by Kemp, et al. for origin of genetic marker found in On-Your-Knees-Cave human remains: 10,300 to about 18,000 years. Age given by Kemp, et al. for a suite of North american genetic markers: about 13,400 years. ( part of a range of about 8,000 to about 20,000 years old, at a 95% confidence interval). Kemp, et al. state that they are reluctant to put an exact date on human immigration into the Americas.
- Daryl Krupa
Jack Linthicum - 12 Feb 2007 12:20 GMT This is probably a better account, still not complete as Athena Review doesn't post full articles on the internet. The On Your Knees Cave site is a model for cooperation between the archaeologists, the various sciences interested in the past of a site and the local people and has been cited as such in the accounts of others like the Kennewick man situation.
Although the group studying OYKCM haven't tried to put the discovery into any wider context the Athena Review has the following paragraph as a teaser:
"DNA recovered from the 49-PET-408 individual appears to support this coastal migration theory. The DNA was compared with mitochondrial DNA from more than 3,000 Native American sequences taken from public databases. Matches were obtained from samples of modern and ancient individuals, with the coastal Cayapa of Ecuador accounting for more than 50% of the matches. Others included the Chumash (California), the Klunk Mound people (Illinois), the Tarahumara (Chihuahua, Mexico), and the Mapuche and Yaghan tribes (Chile) - thereby tracing a possible migration route."
http://www.athenapub.com/oldestDNA.htm
Tedd Jacobs - 13 Feb 2007 01:10 GMT "Jack Linthicum" wrote...
> The oldest human bones found in a North American site belonged to > Arlington Man (actually woman) found on Santa Rosa Island and dated to [quoted text clipped - 151 lines] > > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070202-human-migration.html?sour ce=rss this of course calls into question- where did the people that perportedly settled north and south american sites that predate the results of this study come from?
prd - 13 Feb 2007 03:40 GMT In sci.archaeology message news:eqr36r0q9b@enews4.newsguy.com by "Tedd Jacobs" <TJacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> . . . :
> "Jack Linthicum" wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 158 lines] > perportedly settled north and south american sites that predate the > results of this study come from? Their mothers, of course. :^).
Daryl Krupa - 13 Feb 2007 12:55 GMT > this of course calls into question- where did the people that perportedly > settled north and south american sites that predate the results of this > study come from? Tedd, the study does not really have specific-date results; its main result is to show that "the molecular clock" seems to run much faster than previously thought (i.e., things get weirder, quicker). The age ranges quoted by the authors, or deduced themselves, have more than 2 dozen millennia ago as their upper end. The "15,000" is more like a round number between the LGM and the beginning of the Holocene, than a number that is deduced from the available evidence. Really, all it does is show that previous estimates for first human immigration into the Americas don't match the archaeological evidence because of a mis-measurement of average rates of mutation (sorta like measuring the length of a pendulum under a cuckoo clock with a metric measuring tape, then reporting the number of centimetres as that many inches).
Over-hyped research, as is becoming too common since NatGeog put out a Swimsuit Issue and got all Web-footed.
- Daryl Krupa
prd - 13 Feb 2007 14:20 GMT In sci.archaeology message news:1171371350.689132.222840 @h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com by "Daryl Krupa" <icycalmca@yahoo.com> . . .
>> this of course calls into question- where did the people that perporte > dly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > seems to run much faster than previously thought > (i.e., things get weirder, quicker). This is not true, you cannot _estimate rate variation_ of the clock based on a sample of one when that mtDNA sequence
1. Maybe in error 2. May represent a sequence that evolved at a much earlier time and persisted 4 or 5 halflives of potential change of one position over the entire sequence.
The only time you can estimate rate variation is when a sequence is alot older than you anticipated that branch point to be.
In a founding Scenario in several mtDNA types found, lets say A, B, and C each at 33%
If we assume linearity in the propogation (which one cannot)
33% --7ky genomic--> 16%---7ky--> 8% --->4%
At 96% confidence you can still detect that sequence after 21 ky. If that sequence was present at 10500 years then it could have evolved in situ 31,000 years ago. If they did HVR1 we are talking about even longer periods of time.
Daryl Krupa - 14 Feb 2007 04:58 GMT > In sci.archaeology message news:1171371350.689132.222840 > @h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com by "Daryl Krupa" <icycal...@yahoo.com> . . . [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > 31,000 years ago. If they did HVR1 we are talking > about even longer periods of time. From Kemp, et al.'s Discussion section:
" Applying our most conservative rate of 34%/site per myr (95% CI 15-53%/site per myr) to the nucleotide diversity estimate (p ¼ 0.86) for mtDNA haplogroups A, B, C, and D in Native Americas (Bonatto and Salzano, 1997b), indicates that human entered the Americas ~13,438 YBP (95% CI 8,113-28,667 YBP). While this estimate does not preclude the possibility of an early entry, the estimate is also compatible with an entry more recent than 15,000 YBP. "
"YBP", here, means "years ago".
I think that we would all appreciate your examination and critique of the full article, here:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/HumanMigrations/files/Genetics/mtDNA/
(No, I'm not being sarcastic. You obviously know more about this than just about anybody posting here, Phillip, and your input on this matter is welcome.)
- Daryl Krupa
Jack Linthicum - 13 Feb 2007 17:52 GMT > > this of course calls into question- ?where did the people that perportedly > > settled north and south american sites that predate the results of this [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > - > Daryl Krupa The National Geographic reference says the "findings were published last week online in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, I have just worked over their website and can't find the article. In addition, I have gotten a copy of the Nature artcle, one page, which contains the precautionary phrase "The work, which has yet to undergo peer review," suggesting a sense of caution on some of the findings as you indicate. An ongoing discussion.
Tedd Jacobs - 13 Feb 2007 19:17 GMT "Jack Linthicum" wrote...
>> > this of course calls into question- ?where did the people that >> > perportedly >> > settled north and south american sites that predate the results of this >> > study come from? [...]
>> Really, all it does is show that previous estimates for >> first human immigration into the Americas >> don't match the archaeological evidence i think that might have possibly been in a round about way without creating further confusion with undue words and overstating what might have been said (or at least implied) where i was kinda trying to go without really sort of coming right out and saying (or at least suggesting) that something or other that i now forgot what i was going to say but we'll all take it for granted anyway so lets move on to something else. (i think).
[...]
>> - >> Daryl Krupa [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > peer review," suggesting a sense of caution on some of the findings as > you indicate. An ongoing discussion. Jack Linthicum - 13 Feb 2007 21:11 GMT > "Jack Linthicum" wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > peer review," suggesting a sense of caution on some of the findings as > > you indicate. An ongoing discussion. National Geographic has funded part of this operation, they have become a commercial enterprise with TV channel and all of the frills (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/). As such, they feel they have to blow their horn whenever anything they back starts to yield results that can be tooted and touted. The NG writer was not nearly as careful as he could have been.
Daryl Krupa - 14 Feb 2007 05:02 GMT <snip> On Feb 13, 2:11 pm, "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> National Geographic has funded part of this operation, they have > become a commercial enterprise with TV channel and all of the frills > (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/). As such, they feel they have to > blow their horn whenever anything they back starts to yield results > that can be tooted and touted. The NG writer was not nearly as careful > as he could have been Agreed, on NatGeog's promotional efforts dominating reportage. we also saw this effect with the Black Sea Flood foofurrah. Mind you, he had help from Kemp, al;though that does not excuse a reliance on an interview for the information presented in the "news item" as opposed to a critical reading of the scientific findings.
- Daryl Krupa
Daryl Krupa - 14 Feb 2007 04:51 GMT On Feb 13, 10:52 am, "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > this of course calls into question- ?where did the people that perportedly > > > settled north and south american sites that predate the results of this [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > last week online in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, I > have just worked over their website and can't find the article. <snip>
It is in the "Early View" section:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/114082833/ABSTRACT
It is also available (in full), at the Yahoo Group HumanMigrations:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/HumanMigrations/files/Genetics/mtDNA/
- Daryl Krupa
rick_sobie@hotmail.com - 24 Feb 2007 18:29 GMT > Over-hyped research, as is becoming too common > since NatGeog put out a Swimsuit Issue and got all > Web-footed. > > - > Daryl Krupa link?
Jack Linthicum - 24 Feb 2007 18:55 GMT On Feb 24, 1:29 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Over-hyped research, as is becoming too common > > since NatGeog put out a Swimsuit Issue and got all [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > link? They have been publishing a "no-swim suit" issue just about every year since I was able to pull them off the shelves. Hugh Heffner got his ideas for that magazine by reading "Bare Tits in Borneo", "Some Really Built Tonganese" and the never to be forgotten "Finnish Sauna Issue".
Daryl Krupa - 25 Feb 2007 06:33 GMT On Feb 24, 11:29 am, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Over-hyped research, as is becoming too common > > since NatGeog put out a Swimsuit Issue and got all [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > link? http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/swimsuits/wallpaper01.html
http://www.dumbentia.com/pdflib/ngswim.pdf
http://www.sportspickle.com/features/volume4/2005-0216-natgeo.html
" Hall and other top level editors at 'National Geographic' also see the swimsuit issue as an extension of the magazine's brand. 'All we're doing now is providing an entire issue of breasts for those kids who have grown into adults. We realize that as adults they probably have other means for seeing female nudity, but we think they'll enjoy reminiscing about their perverted youth while paging through our swimsuit issue.' "
|
|
|