Tag Archives: isolation-by-distance

Reconfiguring biological diversity 2. Coming to grips with diversity

John Edward Terrell


This is part 2 of a two part article

Coming to grips with diversity

Perhaps the greatest stumbling block to deciphering how biological diversity is patterned, or structured, in space and time within any given species is that most existing ways of modeling such diversity presuppose that genes are nested in some fashion within demonstrable and persistent primary units that can be labeled as populations, subpopulations, demes, communities, stocks, races, and like. Yet is this how biological reproduction works? Aren’t genes perfectly capable of “escaping,” so to speak, from such allegedly defining and confining “boxes” through the very acts of reproduction, reassortment, growth, and development?

It could be argued that there is irony in the fact that molecular genetics now has made it possible for scientists to map diversity at the genetic level. Yet many are still given to thinking about diversity as if they were compelled by the old limitations of their laboratory techniques to lump this new fine-grained evidence into inclusive nested sets (e.g., Pritchard et al. 2000; Greenbaum et al. 2016; Skoglund et al. 2016).

Perhaps it is not surprising, therefore, that some have concluded that “the observed pattern of global gene identity variation was produced by a combination of serial population fissions, bottlenecks and long-range migrations associated with the peopling of major geographic regions, and subsequent gene flow between local populations” (Hunley et al. 2009).

All three of these identified processes are plausible reasons for biological diversity in time and space. But aren’t all three of these population-level explanations ignoring individual agency and decision-making? Not to mention love, lust, and human compassion?

Moving beyond population modeling

Current population-level modeling based on molecular genetics is arguably an advance over older metapopulation models framing diversity as an ever-changing flux within species among discrete subpopulations inhabiting separate habitat patches linked by migration and extinction (Fig. 2). Certainly few today would accept that diversity within any species can be adequately explained solely or even largely as the product of fluctuating colonization and extinction events.

Figure 2. A simple metapopulation model at two time periods (A and B) attributing spatial diversity to a shifting dynamic of colonization and extinction events.

Similarly, the concept of the fitness landscape (also known as as an adaptive landscape; see Fig. 3) introduced by the geneticist Sewell Wright in 1932 is another long-debated way of modeling the dynamic interplay—or balance—of a number of plausible determinants of genetic variation in space and time. As Wright explained in 1932:

The most general conclusion is that evolution depends on a certain balance among its factors. There must be gene mutation, but an excessive rate gives an array of freaks, not evolution; there must be selection, but too severe a process destroys the field of variability, and thus the basis for further advance; prevalence of local inbreeding within a species has extremely important evolutionary consequences, but too close inbreeding leads merely to extinction. A certain amount of crossbreeding is favorable but not too much. In this dependence on balance the species is like a living organism. At all levels of organization life depends on the maintenance of a certain balance among its factors. (Wright 1932)

Figure 3. “Field of gene combinations occupied by a population within the general field
of possible combinations. Type of history under specified conditions indicated by relation
to initial field (heavy broken contour) and arrow.” Source: Wright 1932, fig. 4.

A “balance of factors” sounds right and reasonable, but are the ones he mentions the only major factors that must be taken into account? Surely adaptation is not the only driving force of evolution?

Agency and social networks

Consider the observation that human beings are notably variable in stature, weight, and other characteristics of their appearance. Clearly the gene mutations supporting such phenotypic variation have not resulted in what Wright would describe as “an array of freaks.” Evidently such diversity is not selected against—to use Wright’s way of framing the discussion. Why? Because much of the burden of human adaptation does not need to be genetically endowed. Instead, as most social scientists would insist, much of what we do supporting our survival and reproduction is accomplished using socially learned skills rather than by genetically inherited biological means.

Recently Greenbaum and his colleagues observed that the research strategies and tools of modern network analysis are increasingly being used to explore genetics questions in genomics, landscape genetics, migration-selection dynamics, and the study of the genetic structure of species more generally speaking (Greenbaum et al. 2016).

Adopting a networks approach to genetics makes it possible to come to grips not only with the ways in which racism—to return to Roseman’s point raised earlier—has shaped human variation in the past few hundred years, but also how our species’ mobility, adaptive skills, technologies, and social behaviors have been configuring human variation throughout the history of our species.

Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the potential value of using of network analysis in the study of genetic diversity. The first figure is a network mapping of localities reported in a genome scan published in 2008. While the patterning is complex, there is an obvious geographic signal in the genetic linkages shown. Figure 5 resolves the relationships among a smaller subset of the localities that had been sampled, specifically those in the Bismarck Archipelago-North Solomons region of the southwest Pacific.

Figure 4. Spring-embedding network mapping of the localities sampled in a genome scan of autosomal markers (687 microsatellites and 203 insertions/deletions) on 952 individuals from 41 Pacific populations). Mapping derived from the mean STRUCTURE assignment probabilities when K = 10 reported by Friedlaender at al. (2008) color-coded by geographic location. Blue-white = Asia; blue = Taiwan; black = Europe; red = Polynesia; pink = Micronesia; yellow = New Britain; purple = New Guinea; dark green = North Solomons; green = New Ireland; light green = New Hanover; pale green = Mussau. Source: adapted from Terrell 2010b, fig. 3.

 

Figure 5. Nearest-neighbor structuring of interaction among the localities sampled in the Bismarck Archipelago and North Solomons color-coded to show genetic clustering (blue nodes represent locations not represented in the genetic scan). Source: Terrell 2010b, fig. 11.Both network mappings suggest that geography has influenced the structuring of genetic similarities among people living in the sampled localities shown. Yet it also is apparent that the linkages shown may often be closer than geographic distance alone would lead us to expect. Judging by figure 5, the effect of isolation by distance is evidently constrained by social networks (as projected in this figure using nearest-neighbor linkages). Hence while geographic distance may be contributing to the patterning of genetic diversity among people in this part of the world, geography is by no means the whole story.
Conclusions

The network analysis briefly introduced in figures 4 and 5 had two principal aims, one phylogenetic, the other tokogenetic (Terrell 2010b). Do people living today in the Pacific segregate genetically along lines concordant with the reputedly separate (i.e., cladistic) histories of languages spoken there, principally the divide drawn by linguists and others between speakers of Austronesian and non-Austronesian (Papuan) languages (Terrell 2006)? To what extent does the genetic similarity among people living in different residential communities correlate with the nearest-neighbor propinquity of these sampled places?

Neither of these aims presuppose that the research goal is to define genetically discrete human populations (or subpopulations, demes, groups, communities, races, and the like) either a priori or by using, say, individual-based clustering (IBC) methods (e.g., Ball et al. 2010).

These two aims have more in common with those of the emerging field of landscape genetics (Dyer and Nason 2004; Garroway et al. 2008) than with most previous research in population genetics. However, both of these aims focus more directly on the genetic consequences of the behavior of organisms in space and time—in this case, humans—than on the geography, ecology, and environmental history of the locales where the people in question reside.

Both can also be seen as stepping back from Roseman’s observations about the impact of racial politics and social practices on the human genome in the past few centuries to underscore a more general issue in evolutionary biology: How much do the mobility and social behavior of individuals within any given animal species structure the genetic variation of that species?

As Dyer and Nason (2004) have remarked: “The evolution of population genetic structure is a dynamic process influenced by both historical and recurrent evolutionary processes.” Using network theory and visualization techniques to map the genetic structure of a species in space and time is still in its infancy. Reconfiguring how science grapples with the inherent complexity of evolution as an ever unfolding process using network approaches has the promise of making it easier to explore how comparable or dissimilar species are in their strategies for survival and reproduction (Fortuna et al. 2009).

Looking long and hard at what other species do to survive and reproduce may make it easier for us to see just how toxic our own social strategies—and the assumptions supporting them—can be.

Acknowledgements

I thank Neal Matherne and Tom Clark for their comments on a draft of this commentary.

References

Ball, Mark C., Laura Finnegan, Micheline Manseau, and Paul Wilson. 2010. Integrating multiple analytical approaches to spatially delineate and characterize genetic population structure: An application to boreal caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in central Canada. Conservation Genetics 11, 6: 2131-2143.

Dyer, Rodney J., and John D. Nason. 2004. Population graphs: The graph theoretic shape of genetic structure. Molecular ecology 13, 7: 1713-1727.

Fortuna, Miguel A., Rafael G. Albaladejo, Laura Fernández, Abelardo Aparicio, and Jordi Bascompte. 2009. Networks of spatial genetic variation across species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 45: 19044-19049.

Friedlaender, Jonathan S., Françoise R. Friedlaender, Jason A. Hodgson, Matthew Stoltz, George Koki, Gisele Horvat, Sergey Zhadanov, Theodore G. Schurr, and D. Andrew Merriwether. 2007. Melanesian mtDNA complexityPLoS One 2, 2: e248.

Friedlaender, Jonathan S., Françoise R. Friedlaender, Floyd A. Reed, Kenneth K. Kidd, Judith R. Kidd, Geoffrey K. Chambers, Rodney A. Lea et al. 2008. The genetic structure of Pacific IslandersPLoS Genet 4, 1: e19.

Garroway, Colin J., Jeff Bowman, Denis Carr, and Paul J. Wilson. 2008. Applications of graph theory to landscape genetics. Evolutionary Applications 1, 4: 620-630.

Greenbaum, Gili, Alan R. Templeton, and Shirli Bar-David. 2016. Inference and analysis of population structure using genetic data and network theory. Genetics 202.4: 1299-1312.

Hellenthal, Garrett, George BJ Busby, Gavin Band, James F. Wilson, Cristian Capelli, Daniel Falush, and Simon Myers. 2014. A genetic atlas of human admixture history.” Science 343, 6172: 747-751.

Hunley, Keith, Michael Dunn, Eva Lindström, Ger Reesink, Angela Terrill, Meghan E. Healy, George Koki, Françoise R. Friedlaender, and Jonathan S. Friedlaender. 2008. Genetic and linguistic coevolution in Northern Island MelanesiaPLoS Genet 4, no. 10 (2008): e1000239.

Hunley, Keith L., Meghan E. Healy, and Jeffrey C. Long. 2009. The global pattern of gene identity variation reveals a history of long‐range migrations, bottlenecks, and local mate exchange: Implications for biological race. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 139, 1: 35-46.

Kelly, Kevin M.,  2002. Population. In Hart, J. P. & Terrell, J. E. (eds.) Darwin and Archaeology: A handbook of key concepts, pp 243–256. Westport, Ct: Bergin & Garvey.

Moore, John H. 1994. Putting anthropology back together again: The ethnogenetic critique of cladistic theory. American Anthropologist (1994): 925-948.

Posada, David, and Keith A. Crandall. 2001. Intraspecific gene genealogies: Trees grafting into networks. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16, 1: 37-45.

Pritchard, Jonathan K., Matthew Stephens, and Peter Donnelly. 2000. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155, 2: 945-959.

Rieppel, Olivier. 2009. Hennig’s enkaptic system. Cladistics 25, 3: 311-317.

Roseman, Chartes C. 2014. Troublesome Reflection: Racism as the Blind Spot in the Scientific Critique of Race” Human biology 86, 3: 233-240.

Roseman, Charles C. 2014. “Random genetic drift, natural selection, and noise in human cranial evolution. Human Biology 86, 3: 233-240.

Skoglund, Pontus, Cosimo Posth, Kendra Sirak, Matthew Spriggs, Frederique Valentin, Stuart Bedford, Geoffrey R. Clark et al. 2016. Genomic insights into the peopling of the Southwest Pacific. Nature 538: 510-513.

Terrell, John Edward. 2006. Human biogeography: Evidence of our place in nature. Journal of Biogeography 33, 12: 2088-2098.

Terrell, John Edward. 2010a. Language and material culture on the Sepik coast of Papua New Guinea: Using social network analysis to simulate, graph, identify, and analyze social and cultural boundaries between communities. Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology 5, 1: 3-32.

Terrell, John Edward. 2010b. Social network analysis of the genetic structure of Pacific islanders. Annals of human genetics 74, 3: 211-232.

Terrell, John Edward. 2015. A Talent for Friendship: Rediscovery of a Remarkable Trait. Oxford University Press.

Terrell, John Edward, and Pamela J. Stewart. 1996. The paradox of human population genetics at the end of the twentieth century. Reviews in Anthropology 25, 1: 13-33.

Wade, Nicholas. 2014. A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History. Penguin.

Wilson, David Sloan, and Edward O. Wilson. 2008. Evolution for the Good of the Group”: The process known as group selection was once accepted unthinkingly, then was widely discredited; it’s time for a more discriminating assessment. American Scientist 96, 5: 380-389.

Wright, Sewall. 1932. The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution. Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Genetics , Vol. 1: 356-366.

© 2017 John Edward Terrell. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. The statements and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not constitute official statements or positions of the Editors and others associated with SCIENCE DIALOGUES.

In the works: Mating, variation, and speciation: An interdisciplinary conversation

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Limenitis_archippus_mating_2.jpg

While using network theory and visualization techniques to map the genetic structure of species in space and time is in its infancy, reconfiguring how science grapples with the inherent complexity of evolution as an ever unfolding process using network approaches has the promise of making it easier to explore how comparable or dissimilar species are in their strategies for survival and reproduction. Looking long and hard at what other species do to survive and reproduce may also make it easier for all of us to see just how toxic our own social strategies—and the assumptions supporting them—can be.

Reconfiguring biological diversity 1. Toxic and obsolete assumptions

John Edward Terrell


This is part 1 of a two part article

IN AN INSIGHTFUL REVIEW of Nicholas Wade’s recent book A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History (Wade 2014), the anthropological geneticist Charles C. Roseman concluded that current scientific arguments against biological racism are weak and scattered. These failings—my word, not Roseman’s—are far more than just scientifically troubling. “To recuperate a useful scientific critique of race,” he argues, “we need to come to grips with ways in which the political processes of racism have shaped human organisms over the last few hundred years” (Roseman 2014).

As Roseman notes, nobody seriously contests that human variation “is structured in geographic space, through time, and across many social divisions.” What is still up for grabs is how to explain this observable diversity. And as Roseman emphasizes, how we explain human variation cannot ignore the divisive and often destructive power of racism as a potent driver of human evolution. “Without incorporating the effects of racism into models of human variation today, we will not be able to have a cohesive theory of genes and race, and the scientific critique of race will continue to have no teeth.”

While Roseman’s observations focus on human biological diversity, the weaknesses and uncertainties he has highlighted about our explanations for variation within our species apply also to modern science’s grasp of biological diversity more broadly speaking. From this more inclusive point of view, racism is just a particularly invidious human form of social behavior capable of patterning our genetic diversity in time and space. If so, what about other species? How does the patterning of their mobility and social behavior shape their genetic diversity?

“Populations,” “admixture,” and conventional wisdom

Although the human brain can be coaxed into paying close attention to detail and nuance,  as a thinking machine it generally favors expediency and the utility of knowledge over precision and accuracy.  It is not altogether surprising, therefore, that even scientists often still take it for granted that biological species are naturally subdivided into separate “populations” or “subspecies” that  may occasionally—say under changing demographic or environmental conditions—meet and mix, and thereby produce more or less isolated “admixed” new hybrids (e.g., Moore 1994; Hellenthal et al. 2014). The question being overlooked or at any rate downplayed is how real and persistent are these assumed “populations” (Terrell and Stewart 1996; Kelly 2002).

This question may sound academic, but it is not trivial, as Charles Roseman has underscored. When it comes to human beings, the favored word in scholarly circles may be the word population or perhaps deme, group, or community, but for the chap on the street, the more likely choice wouldn’t be one of these formal terms, but rather the more down-to-earth word race. (I still vividly remember being scolded by a famous biological anthropologist decades ago when I was an undergraduate for using this particular “r” word. “We don’t use that word anymore,” he told me. “We use the term stock  instead.”)

What’s at stake here

It has been a foregone assumption in most genetics research for years that different species are by definition and by their biology isolated reproductively from one another, i.e., individuals in different species cannot mate and give birth to viable offspring capable of sustaining life for longer than a single generation. However, even the most committed cladist accepts that biological relationships below the level of the species are tokogenetic, not phylogenetic (Posada and Crandall 2001; Rieppel 2009).

Figure 1. “Tokogeny versus phylogeny. (a) Processes occurring among sexual species (phylogenetic processes) are hierarchical. That is, an ancestral species gives rise to two descendant species. (b) Processes occurring within sexual species (tokogenetic processes) are nonhierarchical. That is, two parentals combine their genes to give rise to the offspring. (c) The split of two species defines a phylogenetic relationship among species (thick lines) but, at the same time, relationships among individuals within the ancestral species (species 1) and within the descendant species (species 2 and 3) are tokogenetic (arrows).” Source: Posada and Crandall 2001, fig. 1.

Here, therefore, is the conundrum. Call them what you want, populations within any given species are not inherently isolated reproductively either by definition and by their biology. Hence to treat populations as natural units, they must first be defined and demonstrated to be isolated and discernible as such in some other way, or ways. Can this be done?

Here is one favored way when the species in question is ourselves. Many people believe that the language you speak is a reliable sign or marker of your true ethnicity and even your race. Is this right?

Hardly. As both fable and risqué jokes alike would have it, any sailor arriving in a strange port of call is likely to discover soon enough that you don’t really need to speak the local language to enjoy a good time while ashore as long as you have a few coins in your pocket. Yet scholars have long written about people living in what some see as the “underdeveloped” regions of the world as being subdivided into recognizable ethnolinguistic groups, language communities, and the like despite the fact that such euphemisms for the old-fashioned word race pigeonhole rather than map the realities of their lives (Terrell 2010a).

But if neither biology nor language inherently—i.e., “naturally”—isolates and thereby subdivides human beings as a species into different populations, subpopulations, demes, communities, stocks, or races, is there anything that does? And what about other species on earth?

Competition and tribalism, or isolation-by-distance?

As Roseman has remarked: “All analyses of human variation make strong assumptions about the mode, tempo, and pattern whenever they interpret statistical results to make evolutionary conclusions” (Roseman 2016). Favored explanations for or against the assumption that our species can be subdivided into enduring natural populations largely fall into one or the other of two basic sorts.

On the one hand, there has long been anecdotal and scholarly evidence, too, that geography and topography can limit how well and how often people are able to stay in touch with one another socially and intellectually as well as sexually. As the authors of one recent study commented, research has shown that there is a strong positive correlation between global genetic diversity within our species and geographic distance. The correlations observed have often been interpreted “as being consistent with a model of isolation by distance in which there are no major geographic discontinuities in the pattern of neutral genetic variation” (Hunley et al. 2009).

As these same authors note, however, discordant gene frequency patterns are also common within our species. It is obvious, too, that physical and social impediments to gene flow have regularly produced both larger discontinuities as well as concordant allele frequency patterns than would be expected based solely on isolation-by-distance (clinal) models of variation (Ibid.).

Adding social impediments to the mix of possible explanations brings into play the second way many have tried to explain why people around the globe appear to be so diverse. While there are many variants of this alternative argument, the essential ingredients are the baseline assumptions that (a) competition between individuals and groups is the main driving force of evolution, (b) human beings are by nature selfish and aggressive creatures, and (c) until recently humans lived in small tribal groups that were not just suspicious of strangers and other communities near and far, but were frequently at war them them, too. All of these claims are not only questionable, but are arguably contrary to the fundamental evolved characteristics of our species (Terrell 2015).


Part 2: Coming to grips with diversity 


References

Ball, Mark C., Laura Finnegan, Micheline Manseau, and Paul Wilson. 2010. Integrating multiple analytical approaches to spatially delineate and characterize genetic population structure: An application to boreal caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in central Canada. Conservation Genetics 11, 6: 2131-2143.

Dyer, Rodney J., and John D. Nason. 2004. Population graphs: The graph theoretic shape of genetic structure. Molecular ecology 13, 7: 1713-1727.

Fortuna, Miguel A., Rafael G. Albaladejo, Laura Fernández, Abelardo Aparicio, and Jordi Bascompte. 2009. Networks of spatial genetic variation across species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 45: 19044-19049.

Friedlaender, Jonathan S., Françoise R. Friedlaender, Jason A. Hodgson, Matthew Stoltz, George Koki, Gisele Horvat, Sergey Zhadanov, Theodore G. Schurr, and D. Andrew Merriwether. 2007. Melanesian mtDNA complexityPLoS One 2, 2: e248.

Friedlaender, Jonathan S., Françoise R. Friedlaender, Floyd A. Reed, Kenneth K. Kidd, Judith R. Kidd, Geoffrey K. Chambers, Rodney A. Lea et al. 2008. The genetic structure of Pacific IslandersPLoS Genet 4, 1: e19.

Garroway, Colin J., Jeff Bowman, Denis Carr, and Paul J. Wilson. 2008. Applications of graph theory to landscape genetics. Evolutionary Applications 1, 4: 620-630.

Greenbaum, Gili, Alan R. Templeton, and Shirli Bar-David. 2016. Inference and analysis of population structure using genetic data and network theory. Genetics 202.4: 1299-1312.

Hellenthal, Garrett, George BJ Busby, Gavin Band, James F. Wilson, Cristian Capelli, Daniel Falush, and Simon Myers. 2014. A genetic atlas of human admixture history.” Science 343, 6172: 747-751.

Hunley, Keith, Michael Dunn, Eva Lindström, Ger Reesink, Angela Terrill, Meghan E. Healy, George Koki, Françoise R. Friedlaender, and Jonathan S. Friedlaender. 2008. Genetic and linguistic coevolution in Northern Island MelanesiaPLoS Genet 4, no. 10 (2008): e1000239.

Hunley, Keith L., Meghan E. Healy, and Jeffrey C. Long. 2009. The global pattern of gene identity variation reveals a history of long‐range migrations, bottlenecks, and local mate exchange: Implications for biological race. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 139, 1: 35-46.

Kelly, Kevin M.,  2002. Population. In Hart, J. P. & Terrell, J. E. (eds.) Darwin and Archaeology: A handbook of key concepts, pp 243–256. Westport, Ct: Bergin & Garvey.

Moore, John H. 1994. Putting anthropology back together again: The ethnogenetic critique of cladistic theory. American Anthropologist (1994): 925-948.

Posada, David, and Keith A. Crandall. 2001. Intraspecific gene genealogies: Trees grafting into networks. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16, 1: 37-45.

Pritchard, Jonathan K., Matthew Stephens, and Peter Donnelly. 2000. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155, 2: 945-959.

Rieppel, Olivier. 2009. Hennig’s enkaptic system. Cladistics 25, 3: 311-317.

Roseman, Chartes C. 2014. Troublesome Reflection: Racism as the Blind Spot in the Scientific Critique of Race” Human biology 86, 3: 233-240.

Roseman, Charles C. 2014. “Random genetic drift, natural selection, and noise in human cranial evolution. Human Biology 86, 3: 233-240.

Skoglund, Pontus, Cosimo Posth, Kendra Sirak, Matthew Spriggs, Frederique Valentin, Stuart Bedford, Geoffrey R. Clark et al. 2016. Genomic insights into the peopling of the Southwest Pacific. Nature 538: 510-513.

Terrell, John Edward. 2006. Human biogeography: Evidence of our place in nature. Journal of Biogeography 33, 12: 2088-2098.

Terrell, John Edward. 2010a. Language and material culture on the Sepik coast of Papua New Guinea: Using social network analysis to simulate, graph, identify, and analyze social and cultural boundaries between communities. Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology 5, 1: 3-32.

Terrell, John Edward. 2010b. Social network analysis of the genetic structure of Pacific islanders. Annals of human genetics 74, 3: 211-232.

Terrell, John Edward. 2015. A Talent for Friendship: Rediscovery of a Remarkable Trait. Oxford University Press.

Terrell, John Edward, and Pamela J. Stewart. 1996. The paradox of human population genetics at the end of the twentieth century. Reviews in Anthropology 25, 1: 13-33.

Wade, Nicholas. 2014. A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History. Penguin.

Wilson, David Sloan, and Edward O. Wilson. 2008. Evolution for the Good of the Group”: The process known as group selection was once accepted unthinkingly, then was widely discredited; it’s time for a more discriminating assessment. American Scientist 96, 5: 380-389.

Wright, Sewall. 1932. The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution. Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Genetics , Vol. 1: 356-366.

© 2017 John Edward Terrell. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. The statements and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not constitute official statements or positions of the Editors and others associated with SCIENCE DIALOGUES.

Network science: The language of integrative research


Please note: this commentary, recovered on 9-Jan-2017, was originally published in Science Dialogues on 16-May-2015.


Mathematics, they say, is the language of science. When it comes to what is happening—or has happened—down here on earth, it is beginning to look like the right dialect of mathematics to learn is what is now being called (somewhat confusingly) network science.

When the goal is integrating research discoveries across disciplines as diverse as archaeology, primatology, neurobiology, and geochemistry, the mathematics of networks is the Esperanto of choice.

Field Museum in Chicago is one of the world’s largest natural history and anthropology museums. Scientists working there study the world and its human inhabitants from scores of different research directions, both pure and applied. Integrating these often seemingly disparate specialities so that the results of so much scholarship can be communicated to the public through exhibits and publications has always been a problem.

Under the leadership of Thorsten Lumbsch, Ph.D., the Director of Integrative Research at the Museum, “The Field” as it is affectionately known in Chicago is pushing back against research specialization using network science. Here is one example.

A social network is a set of actors defined by their ties, links, or relationships with one another (e.g., friendship networks, ecological networks, global trade networks, and protein interaction networks) rather than by their individual characteristics (attributes) as actors. Since the research focus is on relationships rather than on characteristics, statistical methods  in network science are being developed that do not need to assume—unlike in traditional statistical analyses—that the observations being studied are independent of one another.

Dr. Termeh Shafie, who is currently a Visiting Bass Scholar at the Field,  arrived in mid April from the Algorithimics Department at the University of Konstanz in Germany to help the Field’s scientists apply the statistical methods and models of network science to their research datasets which are as seemingly dissimilar as gorilla social interactions, sharks swimming in the ocean, the genetics of lichens, and the decorations on prehistoric American potshards.

When asked about her work at the Field Museum in Chicago, Termeh Shafie explains:

"The first step will be to learn more about the empirical data at hand, the hypotheses about these data being considered, and how to embed a network approach to them. The second step will be to develop network models based on these hypotheses. This requires the mathematical formulation of models, programming these models using statistical software, and then running simulations. Goodness-of-fit tests can be used to test the fit of the models to the data. Once suitable models are identified, statistics can be used to measure different properties of the networks under study and unlock information in them using the models as predictive tools. Within a level of certainty, we can then predict trends and behavior patterns even for parts of the networks we don’t yet have data for."

On Wednesday, May 13th, Dr. John P. Hart (Director, Research & Collections Division, New York State Museum), Dr. Mark Golitko (Regenstein Research Scientist), and James Zimmer-Dauphinee (2015 Regenstein Intern) participated with Shafie in a small-group Network Science Workshop at the Museum exploring ways to apply network analysis to a large database of information about pottery designs on ancient vessels from 102 archaeological sites to help unravel how communities across southern Ontario coalesced between ca. A.D. 1350 and 1650 into the larger regional populations that ultimately became the historically documented Huron confederacy.

Left to right: John Hart, Termeh Shafie, James Zimmer-Dauphine, Mark Golitko

Left to right: John Hart, Termeh Shafie, James Zimmer-Dauphinee, Mark Golitko

Shafie will be at the Field until August 15th, but even after she returns to Germany, she will continue to be the “networks link” between scientists at the Museum and the Algorithmics Unit under the direction of Professor Ulrik Brandes in the Department of Computer & Information Science at the University of Konstanz.

 

Human biogeography 3. Defining the agenda

John Edward Terrell


Please note: this commentary, recovered on 15-Jan-2017, was originally published in Science Dialogues on 12-Feb-2015.


Abstract – Human biogeography is not a thriving scientific enterprise. Why? In part because our species is remarkably talented at niche construction and highly inventive at adapting our socially learned ways of making a living and staying alive to meet the challenges and opportunities around us wherever we find ourselves on the planet. Nonetheless there is political as well as scientific need in the 21st century for an inclusive biogeographical perspective on human diversity recognizing that we are a globally distributed species whose diversity is framed by isolation-by-distance constrained by our social, economic, and political networks, and whose impact on the environment and our own sustainability is substantial and critically in need of informed restructuring.

This is part 3 of a 3 part series at SCIENCE DIALOGUES


POSSIBLY THE FIRST ATTEMPT IN RECENT YEARS to put humans on the agenda of biogeography was in 1974 at a small invitational conference in Washington, D.C. with this goal supported by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research and organized by William Fitzhugh at the Smithsonian Institution and John Terrell at Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago (Kolata 1974). Human biogeography was provisionally defined by the organizers as “the study of the size, distribution, and population structure of, and the interactions among, human populations found in similar or divergent habitats, and of the conditions and events leading to the development and maintenance of similarities and differences among human populations living at various points on the earth’s surface” (Terrell 1977c: 5).

In 2012 the University of California Press published the first modern textbook in English on how and why we are distributed as we are globally, Alexander Harcourt’s Human biogeography (2012). As one reviewer noted about this book: “to study such patterns effectively one must not only work with an immense body of data, but also effectively employ theories and methods from both anthropology and biogeography” (Banks 2013: 39). Further, much of human diversity, as Harcourt emphasizes, is not about genes determining human behavior or even influencing what we do, but rather about our socially mediated interactions with the world (Hart 2012: 330).

Units of analysis

The biologist Richard Levins, one of the attendees at the Washington conference in 1974, pointed out that comparing the geographical distribution, variation, and demographic characteristics of human beings with these dimensions in other species is problematic. Biogeographers commonly then and now use taxonomic species as their units of analysis since (by definition, at least) species cannot interbreed. But what characteristics should be used to delimit appropriate human units for comparison given that all of us can at least potentially interbreed even if circumstance, preference, or spatial remove may keep Homo sapiens from being a panmictic species (Caspari 2003)?

When the science writer Gina Kolata reported in Science in 1974 on this conference, she noted that selecting the appropriate human units might be contingent on the research question being asked. If so, then defining the units might be done, for instance, by parsing linguistic, genetic, or cultural traits as the salient diagnostic characters (Kolata 1974). However, the crux of the issue raised by Levins and others at the conference remains. When it comes to variation within our species are the units however defined biologically meaningful? For example, are human groups defined linguistically (i.e., as ethnolinguistic populations) also biologically discernible, informative, and more than ephemeral (Kelly 2002)?

The answer is probably negative. The partitioning of people by language, for instance, is perhaps more extreme in the New Guinea region of the southwestern Pacific than anywhere else on earth. Although it has long been conventional to say that linguistic differences can be used to map biologically persistent populations, research on both cultural and genetic similarities and differences among communities in this part of the world has shown that their diversity when mapped geographically is structured most clearly not by language but rather by isolation-by-distance constrained by social networks and local environmental conditions such as ground slope and topographic ruggedness (Terrell 2010a, 2010b).

Systematic human biogeography

Although, as Barth remarked, it has long been conventional to talk about diversity within our species by presupposing there are discrete aggregations of people on earth that can be labeled as human populations, ethnic groups, and the like, it is probable that many of those attending the 1974 conference were fully aware of the challenges of defining units of analysis in the human sciences. They were not merely trying to map these sciences into the research agenda of species biogeography as then understood and practiced in the biological sciences. Yet it is also true, as John Terrell noted in the introduction to the resulting conference volume, that our human environment is not just a social construct: “People are [also] elements in a far more complex system, at best only partly of man’s design . . . within which a change in anyone element or relationship is likely to effect changes, of a greater or lesser degree, in all the others” (Terrell 1977a: 245).

Although the phrase has won few converts, Terrell suggested at the conference that such networks of interactions might be called geographic systems:

a geographic system is the interactive configuration among the size, distribution and interaction structure of a set of local populations and the elements and interaction structure of the area of their occurrence, analysed as a complex of intercommunicating variables within which a change in any one variable or relationship is likely to effect changes, of a greater or lesser degree, in all the others. (Terrell 1977b: 65)

Key here is the qualification “a greater or lesser degree.” As Herbert Simon once remarked: “To a Platonic mind, everything in the world is connected with everything else—and perhaps it is. Everything is connected, but some things are more connected than others” (Simon 1973: 23). What Simon had in mind were complex hierarchical systems: a broad class (physical, chemical, biological, social, or artificial) exhibiting what he termed “loose horizontal coupling” permitting “each subassembly to operate dynamically in independence of the detail of the others; only the inputs it requires and the outputs it produces are relevant for the larger aspects of system behavior” (1973: 16).

Networks human biogeography

Folk human biogeography presupposes that groups of some kind exist (perhaps simply because people say they exist), and similarities among such corporate players on the world stage of history can be attributed to common ancestry, adaptive convergence, or diffusion (which in the biological sciences is often called admixture) across the boundaries that supposedly exist between such corporate entities (Bashkow 2004). Systematic human biogeography interpreted the way Simon has described complex systems similarly also would appear to take for granted the presence of subsystems needing to communicate with one another but only in so far as inputs and outputs are relevant to the behavior and survival of the system as a whole. Yet harkening back to Levins’ concern in 1974: how should we define boundaries and systems in human biogeography?

Proximal-point analysis of the Solomon Islands and neighboring islands to the northwest (John Terrell, Smithsonian Conference, 1974).

Although not given much attention at the conference in 1974, an alternative strategy using graph theory was showcased during one of the presentations then (Terrell 1977c), and it is now widely recognized that Simon’s way of thinking about systemic relationships is not the only way to think about the dynamics of loosely-coupled systems. In 1973, for example, Mark Granovetter (1973) used graph theory—now more generally known as network analysis—to examine how the strength of our ties with others can determine our social mobility, the diffusion of ideas, the political and economic organization of society, and on a more general level, the cohesion of society writ large.

Network analysis enables us see the world around us as one of connections that shape observed phenomena, rather than as one where the intrinsic properties of predefined entities—groups, populations, tribes, systems, and the like—determine the behavior and outcomes of human interactions. Today network analysis in biogeography holds promise, but is still far from conventional (e.g., Kivelä et al. 2015; Radil et al. 2010; Terrell 2010b).

Conclusion

As Shakespeare asked, what’s in a name? It could be argued that anthropology, ethnology, or Erdkunde in the 19th century was simply another name for what would now be called biogeography focused narrowly on one species, namely us (Terrell 2006). This synonymy would be harder to assert for anthropology, human geography, and biogeography in the 20th century in part because the renowned anthropologist Franz Boas and his many prominent students in North America were generally successful at least within the academy at promoting the view that culture (i.e., social learning) is the cardinal trait uniquely defining us as a species (Lewis 2008)—although this historical claim can be contested (Koelsch 2003; Verdon 2006, 2007). What about the 21st century? Is there gain or advantage to be had today by still seeking to unite at least some of the elements of these realms of study under the neglected heading human biogeography?

Martinus Beijerinck in his laboratory, 12 May 1921. Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mwb_in_lab.JPG. US.PD. “Beijerinck was a socially eccentric figure. He was verbally abusive to students, never married, and had few professional collaborations. He was also known for his ascetic lifestyle and his view of science and marriage being incompatible. His low popularity with his students periodically depressed him, as he very much loved spreading his enthusiasm for biology in the classroom.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martinus_Beijerinck.

There is at least one practical reason to do so. While it might seem contentious, it could be said that science as a human activity is more tribal than our species itself. From a social scientist’s point of view—given that we do not naturally come in kinds—it seems astonishing that some geneticists today, for instance, would accept the old folk belief that human groups—geneticists call them populations—are so biologically isolated, and interactions, biological or otherwise, among people living in different places on earth are so rare, that it is proper to assume our biological similarities from place to place must be due to “sudden or gradual transfers of genetic material, creating admixed populations” (Hellenthal et al. 2014: 747; also Elhaik et al. 2014). Perhaps if there were a discipline called human biogeography, it would be more difficult for biologists to overlook what social scientists can tell them about our species, and vice versa.

Acknowledgments

I thank Eric Clark, Mark Golitko, John Hart, and Kevin Kelly for comments on the working draft.

References      § = suggested further reading

Banks, W. E. (2013). Review of Harcourt, Human biogeography. Quarterly Review of Biology 88, 39–40.

Barth, F. (1969). Introduction. In Barth, F. (ed.) Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of culture difference, pp 9–38. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.

Bashkow, I. (2004). A neo-Boasian conception of cultural boundaries. American Anthropologist 106, 443–458.

Caspari, R. (2003). From types to populations: A century of race, physical anthropology, and the American Anthropological Association. American Anthropologist 105, 65–76.

Castree, N. (2009). Charles Darwin and the geographers. Environment and Planning A 41, 2293–2298. §

Cox, C. B. and Moore, P. D. (2010). Biogeography: An ecological and evolutionary approach. 8th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Elhaik, E., Tatarinova, T., Chebotarev, D. et al. (2014). Geographic population structure analysis of worldwide human populations infers their biogeographical origins. Nature Communications DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4513.

Fuentes, A., Marks, J., Ingold, T. et al. (2010). On nature and the human. American Anthropologist 112, 512–521.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78, 1360–1380. §

Harcourt, A. H. (2012). Human biogeography. Berkeley: University of California Press. §

Hart, J. P. (2012). Why we are what and where we are. Science 338, 330.

Hellenthal, G., Busby, G. B. J., Band, G. et al. (2014). A genetic atlas of human admixture history. Science 343, 747–751.

Kelly, K. M.  (2002). Population. In Hart, J. P. & Terrell, J. E. (eds.) Darwin and archaeology: A handbook of key concepts, pp 243–256. Westport, Ct: Bergin & Garvey. §

Kivelä, M., Arnaud-Haond, S. and Saramäki, J. (2015).  EDENetworks: A user-friendly software to build and analyse networks in biogeography, ecology and population genetics. Molecular Ecology Resources 15, 117–122.

Koelsch, W. A. (2004). Franz Boas, geographer, and the problem of disciplinary identity. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 40, 1–22.

Kolata, G. B. (1974). Human biogeography: Similarities between man and beast. Science 185, 134–135.

Laland, K. N. and O’Brien, M. J. (2011). Cultural niche construction: An introduction. Biological Theory 6, 191–202.

Lao, O., Lu, T. T., Nothnagel, M. et al. (2008). Correlation between genetic and geographic structure in Europe. Current Biology 18, 1241–1248.

Lesser, A. (1961). Social fields and the evolution of society. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 17, 40-48. §

Lewis, H. S. (2008). Franz Boas: Boon or bane? Reviews in Anthropology 37, 169–200.

Odling-Smee, F. J., Laland, K. N. and Feldman, M. W. (2003). Niche construction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Radil, S. M., Flint, C. and Tita, G. E. (2010). Spatializing social networks: Using social network analysis to investigate geographies of gang rivalry, territoriality, and violence in Los Angeles. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100, 307–326. §

Simon, H. A. (1973). The organization of complex systems. In Pattee, H. H. (ed.) Hierarchy theory: The challenge of complex systems, pp 1–27. New York: George Braziller.

Stocking, G. W., Jr (1987). Victorian anthropology. New York: Free Press.

Terrell, J. E. (1977a). Biology, biogeography and man. World Archaeology 8, 237–248.

Terrell, J. E. (1977b). Geographic systems and human diversity in the North Solomons. World Archaeology 9, 62–81.

Terrell, J. E. (1977c). Human biogeography in the Solomon Islands. Fieldiana: Anthropology 68, 1–47.

Terrell J. E. (2006). Human biogeography: Evidence of our place in nature. Journal of Biogeography 33, 2088–2098. §

Terrell, J. E. (2010a). Language and material culture on the Sepik coast of Papua New Guinea: Using social network analysis to simulate, graph, identify, and analyze social and cultural boundaries between communities. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 5, 3–32.

Terrell, J. E. (2010b). Social network analysis of the genetic structure of Pacific Islanders. Annals of Human Genetics 74, 211–232. §

Terrell, J. E. (2014). A talent for friendship: Rediscovery of a remarkable trait. Oxford: Oxford University Press. §

Verdon, M. (2006). The world upside down: Boas, history, evolutionism, and science. History and Anthropology 17, 171–187.

Verdon, M. (2007). Franz Boas: Cultural history for the present, or obsolete natural history? Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.) 13, 433–451.

Vincent, J. (2009). Ahead of his time? Production and reception in the work of Alexander Lesser. American Ethnologist 15, 743–751.

Wade, N. (2014). A troublesome inheritance: Genes, race and human history. New York: Penguin Press.

Watson, J. B. (1990). Other people do other things: Lamarckian identities in Kainantu subdistrict, Papua New Guinea. In Linnekin, J. & Poyer, L. (eds.) Cultural identity and ethnicity in the Pacific, pp 17–41. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.

Wilson, E. O. (1978). On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, E. O. (2012). The social conquest of the earth. New York: Liveright (a division of W. W. Norton).

© 2015 John Edward Terrell. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. The statements and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not constitute official statements or positions of the Editors and others associated with SCIENCE DIALOGUES.

Human biogeography 2. Human diversity

John Edward Terrell


Please note: this commentary, recovered on 15-Jan-2017, was originally published in Science Dialogues on 5-Feb-2015.


Abstract – Human biogeography is not a thriving scientific enterprise. Why? In part because our species is remarkably talented at niche construction and highly inventive at adapting our socially learned ways of making a living and staying alive to meet the challenges and opportunities around us wherever we find ourselves on the planet. Nonetheless there is political as well as scientific need in the 21st century for an inclusive biogeographical perspective on human diversity recognizing that we are a globally distributed species whose diversity is framed by isolation-by-distance constrained by our social, economic, and political networks, and whose impact on the environment and our own sustainability is substantial and critically in need of informed restructuring.

This is part 2 of a 3 part series at SCIENCE DIALOGUES.


GENETIC EVIDENCE BOTH MOLECULAR AND METRIC now supports instead two robust observations about the biogeography of our species. First, our global physical diversity is structured not by geographic isolation, but instead by isolation-by-distance constrained by social, economic, and political networks (e.g., Lao et al. 2008; see also below) and the specifics of local geography. Said less awkwardly, people as a rule are similar to those nearby and differ from those living farther away. Second, we are proficient at crossing the lines we draw between ourselves and others. Social, cultural, economic, and political barriers are only as real as we want to make them, and social realities are in constant flux and renegotiation (Bashkow 2004).

To infer, as Nicholas Wade and others have done, that we have normally lived in isolated tribal groups until quite recently—say, before globalization—resurrects what the anthropologist Alexander Lesser once dubbed the myth of the primitive isolate—the belief that there were savage tribes before and after 1492 that were circumscribed, timeless societies having few and mostly hostile dealings with one another (Lesser 1961; Lewis 2008; Vincent 2009).

Ethnic stereotypes

Fredrik Barth has remarked that practically all social science reasoning rests on the notion that there are discrete groups of people on earth that can be variously labeled as populations, ethnic groups, societies, cultures, or races (Barth 1969). This way of charting our diversity—commonly called typological or categorical thinking—takes it as self-evident that things naturally come in different kinds, or types, that may legitimately be labeled as such. From this perspective, the words we use to describe things are like empty containers into which we can put things once we have grasped the essential meaning of these verbal containers.

Bild aus Seite 541 in “Die Gartenlaube.” Image from page 541 of journal Die Gartenlaube, 1887. Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Die_Gartenlaube_(1887)_b_541_2.jpg

From this perspective, it would seem self-evident that different kinds of people live in different parts of the world. After all, who could possibly mistake an African for an Asian or someone of Irish descent? Nor is this just a Euro-American way of parsing real or assumed geographic variation within our species. The anthropologist James Watson reported half a century ago, for example, that people he knew well in the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea had no difficulty pointing out to him how they saw themselves as different from other people in neighboring places despite the fact that these many small communities were intermittently marked by relocations, realignments, and the patriation of immigrants who had been expelled by hostile neighbors from their own lands—so much so, Watson related, that “to the literal-minded genealogist, the long-term kinship and continuity of each such group seem confused, even compromised” (Watson 1990: 17). Yet despite the demographic instability of these communities, he found that people there were generally quite confident they could draw lines between themselves and others for “no matter how permeable their boundaries or how checkered the history of their membership, they will consider themselves and will be thought to be distinct ethnic units” (Watson 1990: 18).

Group selectionism

The belief that people come in recognizable different types, kinds, or races is often paired with the notion that we are inherently selfish, intolerant, and aggressive—in a word, that we are all bullies at birth needing years of nurturance to become kind and socially adept humans. In this vein, the biogeographer Edward O. Wilson has written that when asked if humans are innately aggressive, he replies: “This is a favorite question of college seminars and cocktail party conversations,” he writes, “and one that raises emotion in political ideologues of all stripes. The answer to it is yes.” (Wilson 1978: 99).

The Emin Pasha Relief Expedition under attack from an African natives. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Emin_Pasha_Relief_Expedition_under_attack_Wellcome_L0034831.jpg

Recently Wilson underscored one of the major assertions behind this way of thinking about ourselves: that competition among groups rather than cooperation has been a powerful driving force behind the evolution of our species and our behavior as individuals. As Wilson has recently phrased the thought: “Our bloody nature, it can now be argued in the context of modern biology, is ingrained because group-versus-group was a principal driving force that made us what we are. . . . Each tribe knew with justification that if it was not armed and ready, its very existence was imperiled” (Wilson 2012: 62).

This is not the place to argue against such understandings of what it means to be human (Terrell 2014). Briefly put, as Robert Sussman has written: “To say that humans have a propensity for violence says nothing. We also have a propensity for nonviolence. In fact, the norm, or statistically more common behavior, within human groups is cooperation and among human groups is peace. Violence, both within and among societies, is statistically abnormal” (Sussman in: Fuentes et al. 2010).

Acknowledgments

I thank Eric Clark, Mark Golitko, John Hart, and Kevin Kelly for comments on the working draft.

References      § = suggested further reading

Banks, W. E. (2013). Review of Harcourt, Human biogeography. Quarterly Review of Biology 88, 39–40.

Barth, F. (1969). Introduction. In Barth, F. (ed.) Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of culture difference, pp 9–38. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.

Bashkow, I. (2004). A neo-Boasian conception of cultural boundaries. American Anthropologist 106, 443–458.

Caspari, R. (2003). From types to populations: A century of race, physical anthropology, and the American Anthropological Association. American Anthropologist 105, 65–76.

Castree, N. (2009). Charles Darwin and the geographers. Environment and Planning A 41, 2293–2298. §

Cox, C. B. and Moore, P. D. (2010). Biogeography: An ecological and evolutionary approach. 8th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Elhaik, E., Tatarinova, T., Chebotarev, D. et al. (2014). Geographic population structure analysis of worldwide human populations infers their biogeographical origins. Nature Communications DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4513.

Fuentes, A., Marks, J., Ingold, T. et al. (2010). On nature and the human. American Anthropologist 112, 512–521.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78, 1360–1380. §

Harcourt, A. H. (2012). Human biogeography. Berkeley: University of California Press. §

Hart, J. P. (2012). Why we are what and where we are. Science 338, 330.

Hellenthal, G., Busby, G. B. J., Band, G. et al. (2014). A genetic atlas of human admixture history. Science 343, 747–751.

Kelly, K. M.  (2002). Population. In Hart, J. P. & Terrell, J. E. (eds.) Darwin and archaeology: A handbook of key concepts, pp 243–256. Westport, Ct: Bergin & Garvey. §

Kivelä, M., Arnaud-Haond, S. and Saramäki, J. (2015).  EDENetworks: A user-friendly software to build and analyse networks in biogeography, ecology and population genetics. Molecular Ecology Resources 15, 117–122.

Koelsch, W. A. (2004). Franz Boas, geographer, and the problem of disciplinary identity. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 40, 1–22.

Kolata, G. B. (1974). Human biogeography: Similarities between man and beast. Science 185, 134–135.

Laland, K. N. and O’Brien, M. J. (2011). Cultural niche construction: An introduction. Biological Theory 6, 191–202.

Lao, O., Lu, T. T., Nothnagel, M. et al. (2008). Correlation between genetic and geographic structure in Europe. Current Biology 18, 1241–1248.

Lesser, A. (1961). Social fields and the evolution of society. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 17, 40-48. §

Lewis, H. S. (2008). Franz Boas: Boon or bane? Reviews in Anthropology 37, 169–200.

Odling-Smee, F. J., Laland, K. N. and Feldman, M. W. (2003). Niche construction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Radil, S. M., Flint, C. and Tita, G. E. (2010). Spatializing social networks: Using social network analysis to investigate geographies of gang rivalry, territoriality, and violence in Los Angeles. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100, 307–326. §

Simon, H. A. (1973). The organization of complex systems. In Pattee, H. H. (ed.) Hierarchy theory: The challenge of complex systems, pp 1–27. New York: George Braziller.

Stocking, G. W., Jr (1987). Victorian anthropology. New York: Free Press.

Terrell, J. E. (1977a). Biology, biogeography and man. World Archaeology 8, 237–248.

Terrell, J. E. (1977b). Geographic systems and human diversity in the North Solomons. World Archaeology 9, 62–81.

Terrell, J. E. (1977c). Human biogeography in the Solomon Islands. Fieldiana: Anthropology 68, 1–47.

Terrell J. E. (2006). Human biogeography: Evidence of our place in nature. Journal of Biogeography 33, 2088–2098. §

Terrell, J. E. (2010a). Language and material culture on the Sepik coast of Papua New Guinea: Using social network analysis to simulate, graph, identify, and analyze social and cultural boundaries between communities. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 5, 3–32.

Terrell, J. E. (2010b). Social network analysis of the genetic structure of Pacific Islanders. Annals of Human Genetics 74, 211–232. §

Terrell, J. E. (2014). A talent for friendship: Rediscovery of a remarkable trait. Oxford: Oxford University Press. §

Verdon, M. (2006). The world upside down: Boas, history, evolutionism, and science. History and Anthropology 17, 171–187.

Verdon, M. (2007). Franz Boas: Cultural history for the present, or obsolete natural history? Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.) 13, 433–451.

Vincent, J. (2009). Ahead of his time? Production and reception in the work of Alexander Lesser. American Ethnologist 15, 743–751.

Wade, N. (2014). A troublesome inheritance: Genes, race and human history. New York: Penguin Press.

Watson, J. B. (1990). Other people do other things: Lamarckian identities in Kainantu subdistrict, Papua New Guinea. In Linnekin, J. & Poyer, L. (eds.) Cultural identity and ethnicity in the Pacific, pp 17–41. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.

Wilson, E. O. (1978). On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, E. O. (2012). The social conquest of the earth. New York: Liveright (a division of W. W. Norton).

© 2015 John Edward Terrell. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. The statements and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not constitute official statements or positions of the Editors and others associated with SCIENCE DIALOGUES.

Human biogeography 1. Historical rivals

John Edward Terrell


Please note: this commentary, recovered on 15-Jan-2017, was originally published in Science Dialogues on 28-Jan-2015.


Abstract – Human biogeography is not a thriving scientific enterprise. Why? In part because our species is remarkably talented at niche construction and highly inventive at adapting our socially learned ways of making a living and staying alive to meet the challenges and opportunities around us wherever we find ourselves on the planet. Nonetheless there is political as well as scientific need in the 21st century for an inclusive biogeographical perspective on human diversity recognizing that we are a globally distributed species whose diversity is framed by isolation-by-distance constrained by our social, economic, and political networks, and whose impact on the environment and our own sustainability is substantial and critically in need of informed restructuring.

This is part 1 or a 3 part series at SCIENCE DIALOGUES


THERE OUGHT TO BE A NICHE in the economy of evolutionary biology for a research specialization called human biogeography, but use any search engine you favor and these two words as your key terms. You will find that while human geography has existed long enough to give rise to many sub-specializations (Castree 2009), human biogeography does not exist as a thriving scholarly enterprise, has given rise to no subfields, and is rarely noted as a possible contender for competitive research funding. Why? There are several reasons for this apparent truancy in the academic arena as well as an important lesson to be drawn for evolutionary biology.

Historical rivals

While the roots of modern species biogeography date back into the 18th century and before (Cox and Moore 2010), it has been conventional in Euro-American circles to treat human beings as apart from and even above the natural world (e.g., accounts of Creation in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament). Perhaps for this reason, diverse research specializations such as ethnology, anthropology, archaeology, sociology, geography, physical anthropology, and the like took hold in the 19th century and early lay claim to much, if not all, of that century’s growing information about our own species diversity in its several dimensions—biological, cultural, social, ecological, economic, and linguistic (Stocking 1987). It seems possible—although perhaps difficult to prove—that seeing global human biodiversity as comparable in interesting ways to the diversity, relative abundance, and spatiotemporal distributions of other life forms has generally not been deemed appropriate or worthy. Alternatively, it might be argued that human biogeography was being practiced at least in the 19th century, but under the labeling physical geography, anthropogeography, or Erdkunde (Koelsch 2004). Whatever the explanation, other sciences have largely preempted the stage when the biogeography of human diversity is given serious attention.

Nature and nurture

Human biogeography has not been successful at establishing itself in the academic arena and marketplace in part also because it became increasingly apparent during the 19th century that our species is remarkably talented—to use today’s terminology—at environmental niche construction (Odling-Smee et al. 2003) as well as strikingly inventive at adapting our socially learned (i.e., “cultural”) ways of making a living and staying alive to meet the challenges as well as the prospective opportunities around us wherever we have found ourselves on the planet (Laland and O’Brien 2011). Hence centering research exclusively on the biological, epidemiological, and ecological side of being human might be asking us to overlook many and possibly most of the probable reasons accounting for our presence and impacts on local and regional environments as well as the global biosphere.

Folk human biogeography

Despite the growing sophistication during the 19th century of scientific ways of studying and interpreting human diversity in its many dimensions, older commonsensical ways of understanding our global variation as a species continued to hold sway in the public arena (Lewis 2008). Many of these old ideas survived the 20th century (Caspari 2003) and remain popular today. Two notions, in particular, are often voiced although there is by now more than sufficient evidence to the contrary. The first is the belief that we are an inherently tribal species. The second is the conviction that we are by nature untrustworthy, self-centered, and prone to violence.

The anthropologist Gustaf Retzius at work between circa 1870 and 1890. Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Antropologen_Gustaf_Retzius_i_f%C3%A4rd_med_att_m%C3%A4ta_h%C3%A4rjedalssamen_Fjellstedts_huvud_-_Nordiska_Museet_-_NMA.0052720.jpg PD-1923

For example, Nicholas Wade recently insisted that after we began leaving Africa around 50,000 years ago and started colonizing the rest of the world, we subsequently evolved in isolation on each of the earth’s major continents into biologically distinct races, which both popular wisdom and Wade say are three or so in number (Africans, Asians, and Caucasians) because “human evolution has been recent, copious and regional” and these dispersing human pioneers broke up into small tribal groups as they spread out across the globe. “The mixing of genes between these little populations was probably very limited. Even if geography had not been a formidable barrier, the hunter-gatherer groups were territorial and mostly hostile to strangers” (Wade 2014: 78).

Such interpretations may be appealing in their simplicity, but they are more in keeping with folk wisdom than with available research findings.

Acknowledgments

I thank Eric Clark, Mark Golitko, John Hart, and Kevin Kelly for comments on the working draft.

References      § = suggested further reading

Banks, W. E. (2013). Review of Harcourt, Human biogeography. Quarterly Review of Biology 88, 39–40.

Barth, F. (1969). Introduction. In Barth, F. (ed.) Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of culture difference, pp 9–38. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.

Bashkow, I. (2004). A neo-Boasian conception of cultural boundaries. American Anthropologist 106, 443–458.

Caspari, R. (2003). From types to populations: A century of race, physical anthropology, and the American Anthropological Association. American Anthropologist 105, 65–76.

Castree, N. (2009). Charles Darwin and the geographers. Environment and Planning A 41, 2293–2298. §

Cox, C. B. and Moore, P. D. (2010). Biogeography: An ecological and evolutionary approach. 8th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Elhaik, E., Tatarinova, T., Chebotarev, D. et al. (2014). Geographic population structure analysis of worldwide human populations infers their biogeographical origins. Nature Communications DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4513.

Fuentes, A., Marks, J., Ingold, T. et al. (2010). On nature and the human. American Anthropologist 112, 512–521.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78, 1360–1380. §

Harcourt, A. H. (2012). Human biogeography. Berkeley: University of California Press. §

Hart, J. P. (2012). Why we are what and where we are. Science 338, 330.

Hellenthal, G., Busby, G. B. J., Band, G. et al. (2014). A genetic atlas of human admixture history. Science 343, 747–751.

Kelly, K. M.  (2002). Population. In Hart, J. P. & Terrell, J. E. (eds.) Darwin and archaeology: A handbook of key concepts, pp 243–256. Westport, Ct: Bergin & Garvey. §

Kivelä, M., Arnaud-Haond, S. and Saramäki, J. (2015).  EDENetworks: A user-friendly software to build and analyse networks in biogeography, ecology and population genetics. Molecular Ecology Resources 15, 117–122.

Koelsch, W. A. (2004). Franz Boas, geographer, and the problem of disciplinary identity. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 40, 1–22.

Kolata, G. B. (1974). Human biogeography: Similarities between man and beast. Science 185, 134–135.

Laland, K. N. and O’Brien, M. J. (2011). Cultural niche construction: An introduction. Biological Theory 6, 191–202.

Lao, O., Lu, T. T., Nothnagel, M. et al. (2008). Correlation between genetic and geographic structure in Europe. Current Biology 18, 1241–1248.

Lesser, A. (1961). Social fields and the evolution of society. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 17, 40-48. §

Lewis, H. S. (2008). Franz Boas: Boon or bane? Reviews in Anthropology 37, 169–200.

Odling-Smee, F. J., Laland, K. N. and Feldman, M. W. (2003). Niche construction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Radil, S. M., Flint, C. and Tita, G. E. (2010). Spatializing social networks: Using social network analysis to investigate geographies of gang rivalry, territoriality, and violence in Los Angeles. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100, 307–326. §

Simon, H. A. (1973). The organization of complex systems. In Pattee, H. H. (ed.) Hierarchy theory: The challenge of complex systems, pp 1–27. New York: George Braziller.

Stocking, G. W., Jr (1987). Victorian anthropology. New York: Free Press.

Terrell, J. E. (1977a). Biology, biogeography and man. World Archaeology 8, 237–248.

Terrell, J. E. (1977b). Geographic systems and human diversity in the North Solomons. World Archaeology 9, 62–81.

Terrell, J. E. (1977c). Human biogeography in the Solomon Islands. Fieldiana: Anthropology 68, 1–47.

Terrell J. E. (2006). Human biogeography: Evidence of our place in nature. Journal of Biogeography 33, 2088–2098. §

Terrell, J. E. (2010a). Language and material culture on the Sepik coast of Papua New Guinea: Using social network analysis to simulate, graph, identify, and analyze social and cultural boundaries between communities. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 5, 3–32.

Terrell, J. E. (2010b). Social network analysis of the genetic structure of Pacific Islanders. Annals of Human Genetics 74, 211–232. §

Terrell, J. E. (2014). A talent for friendship: Rediscovery of a remarkable trait. Oxford: Oxford University Press. §

Verdon, M. (2006). The world upside down: Boas, history, evolutionism, and science. History and Anthropology 17, 171–187.

Verdon, M. (2007). Franz Boas: Cultural history for the present, or obsolete natural history? Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.) 13, 433–451.

Vincent, J. (2009). Ahead of his time? Production and reception in the work of Alexander Lesser. American Ethnologist 15, 743–751.

Wade, N. (2014). A troublesome inheritance: Genes, race and human history. New York: Penguin Press.

Watson, J. B. (1990). Other people do other things: Lamarckian identities in Kainantu subdistrict, Papua New Guinea. In Linnekin, J. & Poyer, L. (eds.) Cultural identity and ethnicity in the Pacific, pp 17–41. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.

Wilson, E. O. (1978). On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, E. O. (2012). The social conquest of the earth. New York: Liveright (a division of W. W. Norton).

© 2015 John Edward Terrell. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. The statements and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not constitute official statements or positions of the Editors and others associated with SCIENCE DIALOGUES.