Neotropical bird scientists call for an end to bias.

Two manifestos offer recommendations for shifting field's flawed "northern lens".

Is 2020 the year when primatologists should cancel fieldwork?

Year 2020 has brought the greatest global pandemic to hit the world since the end of the First World War. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and the resulting disease named coronavirus disease 2019 has brought the world to its knees both financially and medically. The American Society of Primatologists has postponed their annual meetings from the end of May 2020 until the end of September 2020, while the International Primatological Society have postponed their biennial congress from August 2020 to August 2021, which has also resulted in their 2022 meetings in Malaysia being pushed back until 2023. Here, I explore the potential dangers of pursuing any primate fieldwork during this pandemic on our study species, their ecosystems, and local peoples. I believe that the risk of bringing this virus into our study ecosystems is too great and that primatologists should cancel all field research until the pandemic ends or a vaccine/reliable treatment is widely available. This is the year we all must become One Health practitioners!

Distinguished primatologist address-moving from advocacy to activism: Changing views of primate field research and conservation over the past 40 years.

Field studies of wild nonhuman primates have grown exponentially over the past 40 years and our knowledge of primate behavior, ecology, and social, and mating systems has expanded greatly. However, we are facing a major extinction crisis with some 60% of all primate species listed as threatened and more than 75% of species with declining populations. The primary factor driving primate population decline is human population increase, which over the past 50 years has resulted in the unsustainable conversion and degradation of natural landscapes for industrial agriculture, the production of nonagricultural commodities for international trade, pastureland for cattle, dam construction, fossil fuel exploration, mining, and the construction of road networks and infrastructure to support large urban centers. Recent ecological modeling predicts that by the end of the century, the four primate-richest countries in the world will lose 32-78% of their existing primate habitat to agricultural expansion, and nine of the top 15 primate-richest countries are expected to have 80-100% of their primate species extinct or threatened with extinction. If we are going to save the world's primates, the time to act is now! Not only should all primate field research include a strong conservation component, but in addition we must actively join with our professional societies, zoos and research facilities, universities, conservation organizations, concerned business leaders, global citizens, like-minded political leaders, and grassroots organizations to inform, demand and direct governments, multinational corporations, and international organizations to engage in transformational change to protect biodiversity and seek environmental justice against those entities that actively destroy our planet. As the chief academic discipline dedicated to the study of primates, we must organize and collectively move from being advocates for primate conservation to becoming activists for primate conservation. This is a call to action.

Review of mammalogical research in the Guianas of northern South America.

Research on mammals in the Guianas of northern South America has had a checkered history. In this review, I summarize the notable contributions to mammalogical study in Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana. These studies began in the mid-18th century with the binomial nomenclature system of scientific classification created by the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus, who described 23 species new to science based on holotype specimens from the Guianas. Notwithstanding popular accounts by amateur naturalists visiting this region, over the next 7 decades there was only sporadic taxonomic work done on Guianan mammals primarily by researchers at European museums. The first comprehensive biological exploration took place in the 1840s during a geographic survey of the boundaries of British Guiana. However, it was not until almost half a century later that scientific publications began to regularly document the increasing species diversity in the region, including the prodigious work of Oldfield Thomas at the British Museum of Natural History in London. Another lull in the study of mammals occurred in the mid-1910s to the early 1960s after which foreign researchers began to rediscover the Guianas and their pristine habitats. This biological renaissance is still ongoing and I give a prospectus on the direction of future research in one of the last frontiers of tropical rainforest. An initiative that would be greatly beneficial is the establishment of a university network in the Guianas with graduate-based research to develop a cadre of professional experts on biodiversity and evolution as seen in other countries of South America.

The current status of ethnobiological research in Latin America: gaps and perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Recent reviews have demonstrated an increase in the number of papers on ethnobiology in Latin America. Among factors that have influenced this increase are the biological and cultural diversity of these countries and the general scientific situation in some countries. This study aims to assess the panorama of ethnobiological research in Latin America by analyzing its evolution, trends, and future prospects. METHODS: To conduct this study, we searched for papers in the Scopus (http://www.scopus.com) and Web of Science (http://www.isiknowledge.com) databases. The search was performed using combinations of keywords and the name of each Latin American country. The following countries were included in this study: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Venezuela, and Uruguay. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: According to our inclusion criteria, 679 ethnobiological studies conducted in Latin America were found for the period between 1963 and 2012. Of these studies, 289 (41%) were conducted in Brazil, 153 in Mexico (22%), 61 in Peru (9%), 58 in Argentina (8%), 45 in Bolivia (6%), and 97 (14%) in other Latin American countries. The increased number of publications related to this area of knowledge in recent years demonstrates the remarkable growth of ethnobiology as a science. Ethnobiological research may be stimulated by an increase in the number of scientific events and journals for study dissemination and by the creation of undergraduate courses and graduate programs to train ethnoscientists who will produce high-quality studies, especially in certain countries.

Is Primatology an equal-opportunity discipline?

The proportion of women occupying academic positions in biological sciences has increased in the past few decades, but women are still under-represented in senior academic ranks compared to their male colleagues. Primatology has been often singled out as a model of "equal-opportunity" discipline because of the common perception that women are more represented in Primatology than in similar fields. But is this indeed true? Here we show that, although in the past 15 years the proportion of female primatologists increased from the 38% of the early 1990s to the 57% of 2008, Primatology is far from being an "equal-opportunity" discipline, and suffers the phenomenon of "glass ceiling" as all the other scientific disciplines examined so far. In fact, even if Primatology does attract more female students than males, at the full professor level male members significantly outnumber females. Moreover, regardless of position, IPS male members publish significantly more than their female colleagues. Furthermore, when analyzing gender difference in scientific productivity in relation to the name order in the publications, it emerged that the scientific achievements of female primatologists (in terms of number and type of publications) do not always match their professional achievements (in terms of academic position). However, the gender difference in the IPS members' number of publications does not correspond to a similar difference in their scientific impact (as measured by their H index), which may indicate that female primatologists' fewer articles are of higher impact than those of their male colleagues.

Walking the tightrope: trends in African freshwater systematic ichthyology.

Africa is blessed with an abundance and rich diversity of freshwater fishes, reflecting its Gondwanan history and geographical position astride the equator. Africa is, however, relatively poorly serviced scientifically, in this respect presenting a challenge to the tension between conserving biodiversity and sustainable development. Biosystematics has experienced several paradigm shifts in the past half century, including the rise of cladistics and more recently the adoption of molecular DNA applications to taxonomy and phylogeny and the assembly and manipulation of large data sets in an era of major development of bioinformatics. The richness of African biodiversity is a magnet to the global systematic community that, to a degree, offsets the disadvantage of an impoverished indigenous scientific capacity. Conservation biology, however, is rooted more closely to the local situation and therefore requires indigenous taxonomic services that are inevitably scarce. Balancing this network of tensions between scientific knowledge generation and application is like walking a tightrope for existing African scientific resources, and to cope it is essential to embrace modern innovative approaches such as barcoding to identify organisms. This paper considers the historical development of African freshwater ichthyology, presents a suite of recent examples illustrating trends in systematic ichthyology in Africa and draws conclusions to suggest that both traditional and new-age approaches to taxonomy are necessary for a complete understanding and appreciation of African freshwater fish diversity and its conservation. The chosen examples also suggest that the tensions between the approaches can be effectively managed provided exponents work collaboratively. The emerging evidence indicates that the combined skills and insight of complex scientific teams including systematists, ecologists, molecular biologists and earth scientists are needed to resolve the deep complexity of evolution in terms of space, time and form.

Metaorganisms as the new frontier.

Because it appears that almost all organisms are part of an interdependent metaorganism, an understanding of the underlying host-microbe species associations, and of evolution and molecular underpinnings, has become the new frontier in zoology. The availability of novel high-throughput sequencing methods, together with the conceptual understanding that advances mostly originate at the intersection of traditional disciplinary boundaries, enable biologists to dissect the mechanisms that control the interdependent associations of species. In this review article, we outline some of the issues in inter-species interactions, present two case studies illuminating the necessity of interfacial research when addressing complex and fundamental zoological problems, and show that an interdisciplinary approach that seeks to understand co-evolved multi-species relationships will connect genomes, phenotypes, ecosystems and the evolutionary forces that have shaped them. We hope that this article inspires other collaborations of a similar nature on the diverse landscape commonly referred to as "zoology".

Ethnozoology in Brazil: current status and perspectives.

Ancient connections between animals and human are seen in cultures throughout the world in multiple forms of interaction with the local fauna that form the core of Ethnozoology. Historically, ethnozoological publications grew out of studies undertaken in academic areas such as zoology, human ecology, sociology and anthropology--reflecting the interdisciplinary character of this discipline. The rich fauna and cultural diversity found in Brazil, with many different species of animals being used for an extremely wide diversity of purposes by Amerindian societies (as well as the descendents of the original European colonists and African slaves), presents an excellent backdrop for examining the relationships that exist between humans and other animals. This work presents a historical view of ethnozoological research in Brazil and examines its evolution, tendencies, and future perspectives. In summary, literature researches indicated that ethnozoology experienced significant advances in recent years in Brazil, although from a qualitative point of view improvement is still needed in terms of methodological procedures, taxonomic precision, and the use of quantitative techniques. A wide range of methodologies and theories are available in different areas of learning that can be put to good use in ethnozoological approaches if the right questions are asked. The challenges to studying ethnozoology in Brazil are not insignificant, and the tendencies described in the present study may aid in defining research strategies that will maintain the quantitative growth observed in the recent years but likewise foster needed qualitative improvements.

Introduction to the special section: "the effects of bonds between human and nonhuman primates on primatological research and practice".

This commentary introduces this special section on ''the Effects of Bonds Between Human and Nonhuman Primates on Primatological Research and Practice.'' The aim is to explore the different causes and consequences of bonding experiences between observers and observed in different primatological contexts. In the first contribution, Vitale asks what are the possible consequences of such bonding in behavioral primatology. Examples of beneficial consequences of this kind of relationship come fromstudies on cognitive abilities of great apes. Furthermore, an empathic attitude with the experimental animals leads to better care and attention toward individual welfare needs. Coleman discusses the particular case of nonhuman primates housed in research laboratories. Care-giving practices arediscussed in relation to scientific, ethical and emotional issues. Morimura et al. present the case of the first Japanese sanctuary for retiring chimpanzees from research where, in order to facilitate the social living of re-located chimpanzees, face-to-face interactions between caregivers and chimpanzees areessential. Asquith discusses the role of an thropomorphism, and proposes that this attitude can help to better understand the lives of primates, in more contextualized scenarios. In relation to this view, sheemphasizes how the term ''primate culture'' accords with some definition of the term ''human culture.''Fuentes, in his article asks whether national, class and ethnic characteristics can influence bonding between human and nonhuman primates, and calls for focused quantitative studies. Finally, Rose calls for the application of the concept of biosynergy, explained as promoting the formation of healthy and sustainable bonding relationships among living creatures. One of the most important aspects emerging from these papers is the need to better understand whether the issue of bonding in primatological studiescan be generalized to other areas of research such as conservation, behavior, captive care, or whether each of these disciplines needs to develop their own understanding of the effects of bonding in ''producing science.''

Bonding, biophilia, biosynergy, and the future of primates in the wild.

Human and nonhuman primates bond with one another in countless ways, and the results are varied and vital to the individuals and species involved. The manifesto that is the basis for the collection of essays in which this commentary is included proposes that the "human/nonhuman bonds that arise in primatological research and practice deserve and demand study and research." An essential corollary of this proposal is that the primatologists themselves must be studied. The aim of this essay is to explore the influence of human/nonhuman primate bonding on conservation practice and on the future of primates in the wild. This commentary applies the author's professional experience as a conservation psychologist and his research on the impact of profound interspecies bonds on human worldviews, attitudes, and behavior. It examines two general categories of bonds: those driven by Biophilia (human fascination with life) and those influenced by Biosynergy (mutual enrichment of life). It is the author's premise that biosynergy promotes complex collaborative interspecies bonds that broaden the conservationist's desire to enhance synergy among all organisms in an ecosystem. Conversely, biophilia induces relatively simple unidirectional bonds between humans and other animals that deepen the conservationist's desire to understand and protect certain species. This contrast raises some crucial questions. Do biophilia-driven bonds between conservationists and their favorite primates blind them to the synergistic needs of all species and impair their ability to work for sustained preservation of threatened habitat? Does biosynergy-based human/nature bonding enhance focus on conservation as an ecological science and thus ignore species-specific factors crucial to assure survival of endangered primates? How can both types of bonds be optimally applied to the conservation of wildlife and wilderness?