Taxonomic bias in behaviour

This week’s paper of the week is a very nice study by Malcolm Rosenthal and friends looking at taxonomic bias in the species studied by researchers that publish in the field-leading journal Animal Behaviour. Unsurprisingly perhaps, they find that vertebrates – especially birds and mammals – are vastly over-represented in the study of animal behaviour, especially when compared to insects (although within insects, the Hymenoptera don’t do so badly). So far, so unexpected – we all know and love that animal behaviour is quite a “fur and feathers” game (although if one included behaviour genetics and/or behavioural neuroscience, Drosophila would be far more prevalent perhaps). The paper comes into its own though in terms of discussing the causes and consequences of this bias. In particular, the authors highlight that risk-averse publishers and grant-awarding bodies channel our science down familiar, safe paths, rather than allowing us to open up new studies with new organisms. Such studies may either fail (“model” organisms are models because they “work” in the lab or field) or – perhaps worse! – be seen as just more “stamp-collecting”. However, this latter criticism is at best misguided or at worst downright foolish – those stamps will either be valuable to test the generality of theories via meta-analysis, or those stamps will over-turn our comfy assumptions and reveal something truly new and valuable. Moreover, early studies with a new organism require much description, and such studies are frowned upon by major journals as well as promotion- or tenure-awarding bodies. However, there is much still to be discovered, if we choose – and are able – to look.

The paper is here and the citation is: Malcolm F. Rosenthal, Matthew Gertler, Angela D. Hamilton, Sonal Prasad, Maydianne C.B. Andrade. (2017) Taxonomic bias in animal behaviour publications. Animal Behaviour 127: 83-89.

Happy reading!


Science and sex

It was great to be out Marching for Science yesterday. However, looking across various social media responses to the marches across the globe, it was clear some people think that science has shown that there are only two sexes (male and female), and that if scientists want to talk about the science of climate change for instance, we should also talk about the science of the sexes. But what is that science?

To start with, one can spill a lot of ink discussing the differences or otherwise between sex and gender (I take what I think is the reasonably common view that sex is a biological entity, whilst gender – at least in humans – is a concept bound up with both biological and socio-cultural associations and meanings, and so sex and gender are two different, if related, concepts). Instead, I will just briefly think about sexes, and make three points.

First, across organisms, sex is remarkably dynamic in evolutionary terms, in the sense that the machinery that determines what sex an organism develops as can evolve (i.e. change) very quickly. Perhaps the most famous example is the humble housefly Musca domestica, that has a veritable melange of sex determining systems, even co-occurring in the same population, so that what genetic factor makes a male or female can differ within and among populations.

Another fabulous example is the snow skink Niveoscincus ocellatus, a live-bearing lizard that lives across a wide altitudinal range in Tasmania. At lower altitude, this species using temperature-dependent sex determination (i.e. the ambient temperature whilst females bask influences whether an offspring will be male or female). However, at high altitude they use genetically determined sex determination, so that the genetic make-up of an offspring determines its sex. This means that the method of sex determination is plastic, depending on location, environment and genes.

These examples – plus the widespread evidence of rapid evolutionary changes and shifts in sex chromosomes and sex determination mechanisms more generally – challenge the idea that a binary sex system of males and females has an unchanging mechanistic foundation – it generally doesn’t.

Second, whilst one might agree that the underlying mechanisms may be dynamic, surely the result is a binary male or female. Well, again, not necessarily. Just looking at animals, there is clearly an extraordinary diversity of ways of being. Yes, we have plenty of organisms with separate males and females, but we also have hermaphrodites, including sex-changing sequential hermaphrodites that might change male to female, or female to male, and species where you may have a mix of hermaphrodites and single-sex animals, or even a mix of sexual and asexual individuals. In ants, bees, wasps and sawflies (the Hymenoptera), we typically see both males and females, but males are produced asexually by their mothers, and so males have no father. And don’t get me started on the little fire ant Wasmannia auropunctata – both males and females can be produced clonally, with males producing sons, and females producing daughters. So here, sons do have a Dad but not a Mum, whilst daughters have a Mum, but not a Dad. Indeed, the two sexes have almost become two asexual species.

Where does all this diversity come from? Evolution by natural selection is all about increasing your genetic contribution to the next generation relative to others in the population. Getting control of the sex determination system is one good way to do that, leading to evolutionary conflicts over the control of sex determination. Mutations that arise allowing you to gain that control will be favoured, as will mutations that prevent others gaining control. Over the last two or three decades, our discovery of so much diversity in how organisms determine sex and how rapidly it evolves strongly suggests that this conflict is on-going, pretty much everywhere.

Which brings me to the third point: what about humans? Well, in humans the empirical fact is that sex is not binary either. (Remember, we are leaving gender and gender-identification out of this, not because it is not extremely important, but rather to focus on what might be called “the science” by some.) Yes we have males and females, and yes the SRY gene on the human Y chromosome is the key starting point of our sex determination cascade. However, there is diversity here, and the frequency of intersex individuals – though small – is not negligible. Whilst there is much we don’t understand about how intersex individuals arise – and there are a number of known mechanisms – they are real and they show without question that humans also have the potential for the evolution of new sex-determining systems and indeed new ways of being. You might not like it, but the science says that sex is not straightforward, and the science does not say that sex is strictly binary, in us, or indeed in many other organisms.

Finally, for an inspiring intersex story, please go here:


Mentoring next generation

Our lab is very lucky to be surrounded by supportive, engaged and fun colleagues, who take their mentoring roles seriously, as we try and nurture the next generation of researchers. For instance, lots of respect and admiration to Lauren and Sue for their mentoring efforts at the Comparative Cognition Conference (CO3) meeting just finishing up in Florida. Lauren organised a mentoring session for early-stage researchers, with Sue being one of six mentors giving up their time to talk to junior colleagues. It is these kinds of efforts, so easily hidden from REF and other metric-based measures of academic attainment, that actually have – in their small, incremental ways – huge impact in the end, by creating supportive, diverse, and intellectually exciting communities that feedback into all the science that we do, and all the achievements that collectively we make. Good on them, and all the other mentors who gave up time on the beach to help the next generation of researchers.

Here is Sue in action:

and here is Lauren’s handywork:

New paper for Ginny and Vicki

Congratulations to Ginny and Vicki on having their paper asking “Can females choose to avoid mating failure in the seed bug Lygaeus simulans?” accepted just now in Animal Behaviour. We will keep you posted when it appears in print.

Dave has cosmic fingerprints

It’s official:

If one struggles with the whole piece about that “interesting” Roy Soc meeting back in November, the stuff about me is:

“University of St. Andrews scientist David Shuker challenged Denis Noble, who had described an experiment where scientists deleted flagella genes from bacteria.

These cells had re-generated their flagella genes in just four days and grown new tails. A mind-bending example of real-time, high-speed evolution.

“Clearly natural selection can rapidly steer regulatory networks. This is a beautiful example of high speed Neo-Darwinian evolution,” Shuker argued.

Shuker, like Jerry Coyne, was towing the standard Neo-Darwinian line, which insists that in the end, all comes down to “selection, selection, selection.”

Shuker somehow imagined that “selection” is re-wiring those genes. I don’t know how selection re-wires genes in four days. Selection after all is just survival of the fittest; “selection” doesn’t provide us a single detail about how those genes got rewired.

But in the Neo-Darwinian view, for any cell to evolve purposefully is unthinkable. So of course “natural selection” always ends up being the answer.”

Yeah, how on earth did I imagine that?

Welcome to Vicki

A warm early welcome to Vicki Balfour who will be beginning a PhD in the lab in the autumn. Vicki will be exploring sexual selection in insects. In fact, it is a bit of a welcome back, as Vicki has already worked in the lab, including with an ASAB undergraduate scholarship, the fruits of which – fingers-crossed – will be accepted in Animal Behaviour very shortly.