The history of Coast Salish “woolly dogs” revealed by ancient genomics and Indigenous Knowledge

Ancestral Coast Salish societies in the Pacific Northwest kept long-haired “woolly dogs” that were bred and cared for over millennia. However, the dog wool–weaving tradition declined during the 19th century, and the population was lost. In this study, we analyzed genomic and isotopic data from a preserved woolly dog pelt from “Mutton,” collected in 1859. Mutton is the only known example of an Indigenous North American dog with dominant precolonial ancestry postdating the onset of settler colonialism. We identified candidate genetic variants potentially linked with their distinct woolly phenotype. We integrated these data with interviews from Coast Salish Elders, Knowledge Keepers, and weavers about shared traditional knowledge and memories surrounding woolly dogs, their importance within Coast Salish societies, and how colonial policies led directly to their disappearance

Ethnobiology Phase VI: Decolonizing Institutions, Projects, and Scholarship

Ethnobiology, like many fields, was shaped by early Western imperial efforts to colonize people and lands around the world and extract natural resources. Those legacies and practices persist today and continue to influence the institutions ethnobiologists are a part of, how they carry out research, and their personal beliefs and actions. Various authors have previously outlined five overlapping "phases" of ethnobiology. Here, we argue that ethnobiology should move toward a sixth phase in which scholars and practitioners must actively challenge colonialism, racism, and oppressive structures embedded within their institutions, projects, and themselves. As an international group of ethnobiologists and scholars from allied fields, we identified key topics and priorities at three levels: at the institutional scale, we argue for repatriation/rematriation of biocultural heritage, accessibility of published work, and realignment of priorities to support community-driven research. At the level of projects, we emphasize the need for mutual dialogue, reciprocity, community research self-sufficiency, and research questions that support sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities over lands and waters. Finally, for individual scholars, we support self-reflection on language use, co-authorship, and implicit bias. We advocate for concrete actions at each of these levels to move the field further toward social justice, antiracism, and decolonization.La etnobiología, como muchos otros campos, ha sido moldeada por los esfuerzos imperialistas occidentales para colonizar gente y tierras alrededor del mundo y extraer sus recursos naturales. Estos legados y prácticas aún persisten hoy en día y continúan influyendo en las instituciones donde los etnobiólogos son parte, las formas en cómo desarrollan la investigación, sus creencias personales y acciones. Varios autores han resaltado anteriormente cinco fases superpuestas de la etnobiología. En este documento, nosotros argumentamos que la etnobiología debe moverse hacia una sexta fase en la que los académicos y practicantes deben activamente confrontar el colonialismo, el racismo y las estructuras opresivas que están embebidas dentro de sus instituciones, proyectos y de ellos mismos. Como un grupo internacional de etnobiólogos y académicos de campos aliados, identificamos temas centrales y prioridades en 3 niveles: a nivel institucional, nosotros abogamos por la repatriación/rematriación del patrimonio biocultural, la accesibilidad a los trabajos publicados, y la realineación de prioridades para apoyar la investigación liderada por las comunidades. A nivel de proyectos, nosotros enfatizamos la necesidad de un diálogo mutuo, de reciprocidad, que las comunidades sean autosuficientes en cuanto a investigación. Además, que las preguntas de investigación apoyen la soberanía de los Pueblos Indígenas y las Comunidades Locales sobre sus tierras y aguas. Finalmente, en el caso de los académicos, apoyamos los procesos de reflexión interna acerca del uso del lenguaje, las coautorías y los sesgos implícitos. Nosotros abogamos por acciones concretas en cada uno de estos niveles para movilizar a la etnobiología para que sea socialmente justa, anti-racista y descolonizada

Archaeological assessment reveals Earth’s early transformation through land use

Humans began to leave lasting impacts on Earth's surface starting 10,000 to 8000 years ago. Through a synthetic collaboration with archaeologists around the globe, Stephens et al. compiled a comprehensive picture of the trajectory of human land use worldwide during the Holocene (see the Perspective by Roberts). Hunter-gatherers, farmers, and pastoralists transformed the face of Earth earlier and to a greater extent than has been widely appreciated, a transformation that was essentially global by 3000 years before the present.Science, this issue p. 897; see also p. 865Environmentally transformative human use of land accelerated with the emergence of agriculture, but the extent, trajectory, and implications of these early changes are not well understood. An empirical global assessment of land use from 10,000 years before the present (yr B.P.) to 1850 CE reveals a planet largely transformed by hunter-gatherers, farmers, and pastoralists by 3000 years ago, considerably earlier than the dates in the land-use reconstructions commonly used by Earth scientists. Synthesis of knowledge contributed by more than 250 archaeologists highlighted gaps in archaeological expertise and data quality, which peaked for 2000 yr B.P. and in traditionally studied and wealthier regions. Archaeological reconstruction of global land-use history illuminates the deep roots of Earth's transformation and challenges the emerging Anthropocene paradigm that large-scale anthropogenic global environmental change is mostly a recent phenomenon

\u3ci\u3eDrosophila\u3c/i\u3e Muller F Elements Maintain a Distinct Set of Genomic Properties Over 40 Million Years of Evolution

The Muller F element (4.2 Mb, ~80 protein-coding genes) is an unusual autosome of Drosophila melanogaster; it is mostly heterochromatic with a low recombination rate. To investigate how these properties impact the evolution of repeats and genes, we manually improved the sequence and annotated the genes on the D. erecta, D. mojavensis, and D. grimshawi F elements and euchromatic domains from the Muller D element. We find that F elements have greater transposon density (25–50%) than euchromatic reference regions (3–11%). Among the F elements, D. grimshawi has the lowest transposon density (particularly DINE-1: 2% vs. 11–27%). F element genes have larger coding spans, more coding exons, larger introns, and lower codon bias. Comparison of the Effective Number of Codons with the Codon Adaptation Index shows that, in contrast to the other species, codon bias in D. grimshawi F element genes can be attributed primarily to selection instead of mutational biases, suggesting that density and types of transposons affect the degree of local heterochromatin formation. F element genes have lower estimated DNA melting temperatures than D element genes, potentially facilitating transcription through heterochromatin. Most F element genes (~90%) have remained on that element, but the F element has smaller syntenic blocks than genome averages (3.4–3.6 vs. 8.4–8.8 genes per block), indicating greater rates of inversion despite lower rates of recombination. Overall, the F element has maintained characteristics that are distinct from other autosomes in the Drosophila lineage, illuminating the constraints imposed by a heterochromatic milieu