Constraints On Human Speciation (Clara B. Jones, 2013) [IN NEED OF REVISION]

Constraints On Speciation In Human Populations: Phenotypic

Diversity Matters

Clara B. Jones^1*

Director, ¹Mammals and Phenogroups (MaPs), Asheville, NC 28801, USA

*Corresponding Author. E-mail: foucault03@gmail.com Phone: -828-279-4429

ABSTRACT:

A phenotype is an expression of a genotype interacting with a component of an environment. Phenotypic diversity can be generated by mutation, physiological mechanisms, developmental processes, or learning (reinforcing and aversive stimulus-response effects). Causes and consequences of lifetime reproductive success can be partitioned into one or another of the previous mechanisms of phenotypic diversity. This article highlights, in particular, the ways in which behavioral diversity including cultural rules, enhances a phenotype’s relative reproductive success. Expanding Frank’s (2011) theoretical framework, it is argued that, while a diverse (e.g., “modular”) human phenotype may broaden a phenotype’s success in a given landscape, byproducts are produced that increase gene flow between populations, limiting the potential for population divergence and reproductive isolation. The mechanisms discussed herein are not necessarily dependent upon conscious and aware operations.

Key words: Homo sapiens; Behavioral flexibility; Collaboration; Cooperation; Fitness landscape; Gene flow; Multilevel societies; Open groups; Phenotypic diversity

INTRODUCTION:

In the Order Primates, thirteen extant genera are represented by a single species (Groves, 2001; Wilson & Reeder, 2005), indicating that mechanisms and processes characteristic of those taxa have delayed, interrupted, or prevented speciation events. Our own species, Homo sapiens, is one of the thirteen. A review of each genus in the set of thirteen reveals few commonalities. With the notable absence of insectivores, virtually all dietary strategies are represented (omnivore, frugivore-insectivore, folivore-frugivore, granivore). No pattern is detected when the thirteen single-species genera are compared for alpha- (α: within-habitat), beta- (β: between-habitat), or, gamma- (γ: geographic)-diversity (Pimm & Gittleman, 1992; Jones, 1997), the overwhelming ecological dominance of humans is unique. Four of the thirteen genera (31%) are nocturnal, and a mix of crepuscular, arboreal, and terrestrial habits is exhibited. Similarly, a broad range of socio-sexual structures is represented among these primate genera, for example, “solitary” (Mirza, giant mouse lemur), “monogamous” (Symphalangus, siamang), polygynous (Erythrocebus, patas monkey), multimale-multifemale (Oreonax, yellow-tailed wooly monkey), and “multi-level” (Theropithecus, gelada; humans).

Eight of the thirteen species (62%) are typically found in one habitat type or demonstrate a strong preference for same. The remaining taxa, including, humans, have been observed in several habitat types, making them good candidates for a number of comparative analyses (genomics, physiology, and behavior, as well as, population, community, and ecosystem ecology), . Significantly, cooperatively-breeding primates are not represented among the subset of thirteen (but, see, Allocebus, hairy-eared dwarf lemur). On the other hand, several genera, are distinguished by elaborate vocal repertoires (e.g., Lemur, ring-tail lemur; siamang; Homo), and all have one or more exaggerated anatomical or morphological features (e.g., pelage, coloration, genital structures), suggesting evolution by sexual selection, a controversial mechanism of speciation (“macroevolution”: Servedio & Kopp, 2012). Insufficient empirical data exist on the relative significance of historical geographical barriers to gene flow that might have facilitated the speciation process (Jones, 1987; Groves, 2001) or of the roles played by habitat specificity (“habitat selection”: Jones, 1997; but, see Erythrocebus) in limiting a genus to a single species, a condition obscuring patterns that may exist in Nature.

In the present paper, humans are highlighted in an attempt to identify both general and specific features constraining differentiation of their populations into interbreeding, reproductively-isolated units (“the biological species concept”: see Rundle & Boughman, 2010). Such analyses may contribute to our understanding of Homo sapiens as a “weedy”, invasive species, the most geographically and ecologically successful taxon among terrestrial vertebrates. Though many aspects of human biology are relatively well-known, the capacity of technological societies to maintain high population densities (high α-diversity), to successfully invade virtually all global habitats (high β-diversity), to modify their areal ranges (high γ-diversity), to utilize effective mechanisms of niche invasion and expansion (e.g., cooperation, social learning, fire, tools, migration, war), and to impose profound, deleterious effects on global biogeochemistry demand systematic treatments of hominin ecology, phylogeny, and evolution (Hill et al., 2011). Herein, a tentative attempt is made to identify selected human characteristics associated with interruption, delay, or prevention of reproductive (genetic) barriers (e.g., incompatible habitats, “isolation by distance”, pre- or post-copulation mate selection, or geographic barriers such as rivers, mountains, and soil gradients) sufficient to transition from between-population gene exchange, to (genetic) differentiation of populations (“population divergence”), to the creation of genetic barriers and a completed process of speciation. Behavior and social organization are likely to interest a significant proportion of this journal’s readers. Thus, the present discussion emphasizes phenotypic diversity and population structure, as well as, learning to explain the systematic status of Homo sapiens. This paper introduces a novel interpretation and application of the single-species status of extant Homo inferred from Frank’s (2013) treatment of the mechanisms “smoothing” a “rugged” fitness landscape. Questions regarding the nature of sub-species or racial identities in Homo sapiens are referred to Anthropologists.

Genetic differentiation within and between human populations: incipient speciation?

Genetic differentiation and, possibly, incipient speciation of human populations have been documented. Numerous studies exist identifying clusters (“neighborhoods”) of “single-nucleotide polymorphisms” (SNPs) in human populations, a pattern of results suggesting a past, possibly, continuing, process of adaptation to local abiotic (e.g., soil gradient) or biotic (e.g., plant gradient) regimes (“local adaptation”), a phenomenon similar to “habitat selection”. For example, Xing et al. (2009; also, see ISWG, 2001) identified “shared [genetic] variation” among 27 human populations in Africa, Asia, and Europe, including, “caste and tribal samples” in India, demonstrating a degree of genetic continuity across geographical regions. Further statistical analyses of “SNP microarrays” (“haplotypes”: closely-associated alleles on one chromosome), however, revealed genetic structure between sampled sites, and notably, most individual subjects were accurately assigned to the correct population. All individuals were accurately mapped to continents, though genetic structure was not detected for some “closely-related populations”. Xing et al. (2009) concluded that their results confirmed a statistically significant association between geography and genetics, including social sub-groups (“caste and tribal” sub-populations). Despite the strong patterns revealed by the previous study, it is important to note that the authors’ findings pertain to differences in genetic structure within and between populations, and do not specify the functions (genotypes expressed as phenotypes) of those discernible genotypes.

What mechanisms might determine genetic structuring and differentiation of human populations?

Fowler et al. (2011; also, see Henry et al., 2011; Brent et al., 2013) considered “genetic stratification” within and between human populations to be a function of mate selectivity or kin preferences. These authors investigated whether or not variations in specific genes were associated with social networks of “friends”, where friendship was defined as “stable, non-reproductive [non-sexual] unions”. Using microarray analyses, Fowler et al. (2011) demonstrated that one allele, DRD2, was associated with homophily (assortment of similar types), while, another allele, CYP2A6, was associated with heterophily (assortment of different types). The aforementioned study assessed virtually every possible interpretation and implication of the report, concluding, that “phenotypic similarities between individuals connected in a social network are reflected in their genotypes”. This hypothetical construct, derived from empirical data, advanced the idea that some social traits are correlated with genotype, an association requiring some direct or indirect mechanism of individual recognition. A straightforward extension of the Fowler et al. (2011; also, see Fu et al., 2012) report is that, where (genetically-correlated) homophily recurs over time, reproductive isolation of similar genotypes is expected to occur, that, left unimpeded, has potential to induce barriers to gene flow decreasing likelihoods of genetic “mixing” within and between populations. The latter scenario proposes a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for speciation to occur. The present paper addresses some of the behavioral mechanisms and processes limiting reproductive isolation and preventing speciation in Homo sapiens, emphasizing the ways in which human technology and other innovations (e.g., tools, fire, language, ritualized warfare) have ameliorated the potentially disruptive effects of “rugged” landscapes that might enhance a process leading to speciation.

The aforementioned extension of the research reported by Fowler et al. (2011) provides a plausible explanation for the latter authors’ findings as well as for the findings of Xing et al. (2009). The extension is amenable to quantitative (“individual”- or “agent-based”) modeling as well as empirical testing with opportunistic, “natural experiments” of concurrent mate choice/genotype trait analyses using human subjects in natural conditions. The “green beard effect” is a possible candidate as a sexually-selected mechanism of homophily, including, interindividual recognition (Brooks & Griffith 2010; Gardner & West, 2010), possibly an element of a primate social “toolkit”. For example, suggesting a mechanism for a “greenbeard effect”, Mahajan et al. (2011) identified “inter-group bias” (homophily) in Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). These monkeys, residing in semi-natural conditions, discriminated between in-group and out-group members, demonstrating a reliable choice for particular individuals in their social groups.

Interindividual recognition of the sort reported by Mahajan et al. (2011) probably characterizes all primates whose brains categorize and compartmentalize information into simpler units (Sporns, 2011). Thus, it is no surprise that environmental patterns are classified systematically by a variety of rules, including similarity, proximity, or other assortative features (e.g., psychophysical operations: Matsuno & Fujita, 2009). Recent work by Yun et al. (2012) demonstrates another possible “green beard” (interindividual recognition) mechanism: synchrony of motor patterns between interacting individuals (e.g., gestures: Pollick & DeWaal, 2007; also, see Brooks & Griffith, 2010, Nagasaka et al. 2013). “Greenbeard” traits may be genetically correlated, and the latter in addition to other features (e.g., skin color, morphology) may have facilitated speciation in one genus (Macaca), but interrupted the process in humans, depending upon differential genotype x environment and phenotype x phenotype interactions..

For example, human groups may be more permeable than non-human primate groups, or humans may use a broader range of characters when making decisions about who to associate with. Furthermore, on average, humans may receive greater benefits from associating with different types compared to speciose primate genera. The latter case might be expected where intra-group competition is more intense than inter-group competition (West et al., 2002). Peculiar features of our species, then, may have broadened the areal effect of an individual’s reproductive success in “rugged” landscapes (“fitness landscape”), and phenotypes bearing these features are proposed to have directly or indirectly promoted gene flow within- and between-groups, -populations, and -regions limiting the potential for population divergence, reproductive isolation, and speciation. Other primate genera characterized by a single species are presumed to exhibit traits that spread because of their success in managing thresholds of intra-group competition, subsequently decreasing the likelihood of speciation events by facilitating gene flow, preventing reproductive isolation.

Notwithstanding evidence for clustering of genotypes within and between populations, human behavioral diversity appears to enhance gene flow

Using Frank’s (2011) theoretical framework, I posit that numerous genetically correlated or uncorrelated behavioral and social traits characteristic of human phenotypes mediated genotype-environment and phenotype-phenotype interactions (“reaction norms”). Human technological and other innovations (e.g., language, metacognition) are proposed to have increased the proportional area on an idealized (theoretical, multidimensional: Frank, 2011) or realized (a 3-dimensional abiotic and biotic environment: this paper) “landscape” upon which a genotype, expressed as a phenotype, is more reproductively successful relative to the mean lifetime reproductive success of other genotypes in a population. This perspective can be visualized by imagining a grid superimposed on a space subdivided into areas defined by shared features (e.g., a habitat, a watering hole, a grove of fruiting trees, other singular or clumped resources).

Frank’s (2011) treatment allows us to conceptualize a landscape on which reproductively successful phenotypic innovations generated and spread by mutation, developmental plasticity, or learning increased the proportion of cells on the grid upon which a phenotype is effectively successful. In other words, an individual’s “fitness landscape” will be, proportionally, increased relative to the mean fitness of others in a population not exhibiting the successful traits. In Frank’s (2011) terminology, the aforementioned process is a “smoothing” operation reflecting a phenotype’s capacities to decrease stressful environmental events where degrees of stress can be conceptualized as the extent to which the landscape approximates a very rugged (challenging) or a relatively even (less challenging) space in which to survive and reproduce.

Frank’s (2011) treatment suggests that phenotypic diversity will be induced by novel (e.g., disappearance of a limiting resource) or extreme (e.g., severe drought) environmental events and that responses may be genetic (mutation), cellular (physiological and developmental), or learned (by trial-and-error or by “Hebbian” association). Applied to humans, the present treatment posits that characteristics such as cooperation, tool use, the application of fire for processing food, the manufacture of clothing, language, long-distance dispersal, social learning, and the like, effectively switched an environment (“landscape”) from a stressful (difficult, dangerous, risky, extreme, novel), “rugged” one, to a less stressful, more even, or “smoother” one. Reproductively successful innovative human phenotypes, it is proposed, extended networks within- and between-groups and –populations, connecting networks to one or more resource patches, including, other human individuals and groups, thereby, broadening the effective spaces of phenotypes, decreasing deleterious consequences of environmental challenges for (relative) individual reproductive rates, growth rates of groups, and mean fitness of populations..

Traits characteristic of non-human primates and humans interrupt or prevent population divergence

Empirical examples drawn from the primate literature characterize Frank’s (2011) concept of mechanisms functioning to “smooth” a challenging (“rugged”) landscape. Analyzing species distribution patterns of black howler monkeys (Alouatta pigra) and Central American spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi) in Belize, Jones & Jost (2007) showed that black howlers, but not spider monkeys, had successfully traversed the Mayan Mountains/Cockscombe Range in southern Belize. Howler monkeys are adapted to a folivorous diet, an evenly distributed supply of food compared to fruit upon which spider monkeys are heavily dependent. As a consequence of the heterogeneous and often unpredictable availability of their food supplies, Ateles is expected to be more sensitive to environmental perpurbations (Terborgh & Winter, 1980). The ability to consume old leaves is thought to facilitate colonization (Jones & Jost, 2007), providing a relatively accessible food resource in most habitats, allowing flexible “switching” from howlers’ preferred diet (new leaves, flowers, fluit) to less nutritious and physiologically stressful foods (mature leaves) during periods when favored food items are unavailable or scarce (Milton, 1980; Crockett, 1998; Hamilton, 2010).

On the other hand, a diet of fruit presents many challenges because of its low nutritional value and patchy distribution (Terborgh & Winter, 1980; Fleming et al., 1987), factors that may limit or retard the geographical spread of species if appropriate food types or habitats are not encountered. This comparison demonstrates one behavioral mechanism, enhanced niche width, whereby the configuration of landscapes is modified by spatiotemporal effects. The capacity to process old leaves facilitated construction of a comparatively “smooth” landscape for the widely distributed, speciose, hardy genus, Alouatta. Another “smoothing” effect occasioned by a folivorous diet may be reduction of costs from predation, since toxins ingested from leaves may decrease the palatability of howler tissues, a hypothesis supported by one study’s findings that human hunters considered spider monkeys (frugivores) a tastier meat than that of howlers (Jones & Jost, 2007). Differential attractiveness, then, may “smooth” prey landscapes while increasing the ruggedness of predators’. However, the speciose genus, Alouatta, is considered to have differentiated via a process of dietary and geographical partitioning, or, possibly, hybridization (Bicca-Marques et al., 2008). Human adaptations, combined with learning capacities, including cultural exchange, presumably avoided many dietary challenges (e.g., fire, tools, weapons), outweighing deleterious effects, including, tradeoffs, that might have been associated with the innovations (e.g., increased inter-group competition).

Concepts advanced by Frank (2011) are implicit in field research conducted in Mexico by Chaves and his colleagues (2012; also, see Scherbaum & Estrada, 2013). These authors studied Ateles geoffroyi in two conditions of rainforest habitat, continuous canopy and fragmented patches, in order to compare and contrast utilization of available food resources. Consistent with expectation, niche width of monkeys inhabiting fragmented forest was wider than that for monkeys in undisturbed forest, including a higher proportion of leaves. Chaves et al. (2012, pp 109-111) concluded, “It is unlikely that [small fragment size] can maintain viable populations in the long term, they may function as stepping-stones [italics added], facilitating inter-fragment movements and, ultimately, enhancing seed dispersal in fragmented landscapes.” Combined, where necessary, with descent from trees and ground movement, increased niche breadth enhances the behavioral repertoire of spider monkeys, facilitating “initial survival of a genotype in response to novel or extreme environmental challenges, providing an opportunity for subsequent adaptation.” (Frank, 2011, pp 2318-2319). Additionally, variations in other non-human primate traits may function to “smooth” landscapes in feeding and foraging contexts, for example, body size (Wheatley, 1982), “time-energy [“fitness”] budgets” (Grueter et al., 2012), “decision and choice” (Scherbaum & Estrada 2012), social behavior among females (Hanya et al., 2008), “co-residence patterns” and other hunter-gatherer features (Hill et al., 2011), “egalitarian” and other prosocial tendencies (Gavrilets, 2012).

The previous paragraphs in this section presage human habits serving similar functions. Jones & Young (2004), for example, surveyed hunters in Belize, demonstrating that, among non-volant terrestrial or semi-terrestrial vertebrates, niche width varied with food availability, implying an opportunistic (“utilitarian”) strategy based on a hierarchy of preferences. Thirty-four hunters ranked their favorite prey, yielding eight vertebrate species, with paca (Agouti paca) reported to be the most favored bushmeat, “hicatee”, the Central American river turtle (Dermatemys mawii), the least. Prey characteristics (predominantly medium-sized, crepuscular or diurnal, and terrestrial) suggested that energetic factors influenced hunting behavior by Creole men at this site, possibly influenced by gustatory preferences, as suggested above. Indeed, paca’s rich, non-“gamey”-tasting flesh, is considered a national delicacy. Hunting practices of indigenous Belizeans are strongly influenced by cultural practices, in addition to economic ones (Jones & Young, 2004; also, see Wilkie & Godoy, 2001), consistent with Frank’s (2011) emphasis on phenotypic variation (e.g., niche breadth) and learning (e.g., imitation, observational learning, cultural rules) as factors “smoothing a fitness landscape with multiple peaks and valleys”. Combined with spatial “concentration and dispersion” of human populations facilitating the evolution of multilevel population structure, phenotypic diversity in humans broadens a phenotype’s success in a given landscape, while, concurrently, increasing gene flow between populations, effects limiting the potential for population divergence and reproductive isolation.

Humans benefit from phenotypic diversity and learning

Following Frank’s (2011) conceptual framework, the present article posits that numerous traits characterizing Homo sapiens served to decrease environmental challenges deleterious to lifetime reproductive success of individuals. These technological and other innovations, once spread through groups, populations, and regions via sex and social learning increased social and breeding networks, mitigating environmental and social challenges. Tanaka’s (1976) studies of the ≠Kade San (“bushmen”), hunter-gatherers in the Kalahari (southern African desert) clearly demonstrate ways in which a cultural innovation limits mortality and, by extension, enhances reproductive success. The ≠Kade San, comprised of mobile and mobile-subsistence units, inhabit a “marginal” environment characterized by drought (Tanaka, 1976, Fig. 4.1, p 105) and seasonal patterns of food availability (Tanaka, 1976, Fig. 4.2, p 108), a spatiotemporal regime not unlike the heterogeneous environments in which humans are thought to have evolved (Hill et al., 2011). On one occasion, Tanaka (1976) observed chacma baboons (Papio ursinus) foraging in the Kalahari, noting that this primate’s home range was limited by their inability to cross arid land. This researcher compared the monkeys’ habits with those of the ≠Kade San, capable of inhabiting the extreme desert environment as a result of digging through the soil surface to locate and utilize the limiting resource. This cultural practice permits a “band” to expand inherent capacities, “smoothing” effects decreasing likelihoods of sub-lethal or lethal outcomes, and increasing the likelihood of contacts with other “bands” (see below). Such phenotypic diversity is expected to impact individual life-histories (survival and mortality), enhancing mean fitness of populations via increased reproductive rates (Frank, 2011), with consequent effects on higher levels of ecological organization (communities, ecosystems, biomes).

“Bands” of “bushmen” from a variety of cultural groups share the desert environment, sometimes interacting with one another (cf. Lee, 1976, Map 3.2, p 85; Map 3.3, p 87; Map 3.4, p 93; also, see Tanaka, 1976; Hill et al., 2011). These flexible land-use patterns (“spatial organization”), limited by availability of water, are one component of a “rugged landscape”, ensuring relatively frequent contact with other cultural groups. As Tanaka’s (1976; also, see Lee’s chapter in the same volume) chapter highlights, fluid patterns of interaction increase potential for conflicts which the bands prevent or resolve via cultural innovations such as reciprocity, cooperation, common ceremonies, and the like, minimizing conflict and aggression, permitting shared access to resources, cooperative manufacture of tools and weapons, and overlapping ranges. Though Tanaka’s (1976) report does not address the nature of intimate relations among “bands” (see Lee, 1976), transfer of individuals between groups and opportunities for sexual congress probably occurred, leading to gene flow sufficient to prevent reproductive isolation and speciation events. This scenario is consistent with the interpretations of hunter-gatherer data reviewed by Hill et al. (2011).

The evolution of human prosocial behaviors and constraints on speciation

Two recent papers provided a detailed empirical review of “co-resident patterns in hunter-gatherer societies” (Hill et al., 2011) and a preliminary quantitative (mathematical) treatment of “the egalitarian syndrome” characterizing Homo sapiens (Gavrilets, 2012; see Crook, 1971). Hill et al. (2011) analyzed datasets for 32 extant hunter-gatherer societies with a mean “band” size of 28.2 individuals. These authors documented a profile including bisexual dispersal from natal groups, similar to other apes and Neotropical Atelines. Though opposite-sex [adult] siblings resided, with some frequency, in the same reproductive unit, group membership comprising non-kin prevailed across “bands”. Patterns of kinship and group architecture resulting from dispersal, resulted in nested networks of relatives and non-relatives from “bands” embedded in local (“patch”) contexts to higher levels of sociosexual organization. These “multilevel” (“hierarchical”) societies exhibited relatively “open” structures, permitting selective immigration and emigration, and have been described for other mammalian taxa (e.g., some cetaceans, elephants, geladas; Hamadryas baboons, Papio hamadryas).

In “hierarchical” and other complex societies, problems associated with temporal and spatial coordination and control must be managed, and the theoretical literature on “scheduling” indicates that such challenges are solved via within- and between-group “queuing” (Andrews, 2004; also, see Alberts et al., 2003; Fruteau et al., 2013). Within- and between-levels, hunter-gatherers exhibit a broad array of mechanisms, effectively, (1) increasing the similarity of shared fitness optima (“fitness-sharing”: Sareni & Krähenbühl, 1998) and (2) decreasing asymmetries (“egalitarian syndrome”: Gavrilets, 2012). Hill et al. (2011), and most other students of human behavior and social organization (e.g., Crook, 1971; 1972; Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989; West et al., 2006), characterize these mechanisms as one or another manifestation of “cooperation” (and/or collaboration). However, despite the benefits provided by cooperation, queuing, and similar features in many conditions, limits on “prosocial” behavior in humans must, also be addressed (Jones, 2005a, b; Burton-West et al., 2006; Chellew & West, 2013).

The two aforementioned mechanisms are consistent with Frank’s (2011) “smoothing” paradigm, operating to “solve” environmental challenges, to repress selfishness and competition, to enhance access to resources, and to decrease inter-individual and inter-group conflicts. In these instances, social traits benefiting a conspecific’s fitness are posited to limit morbidity and mortality, as well as to enhance relative reproductive rates compared to benefits that might accrue from alternative, selfish interactions (e.g., “non-damaging” and “damaging” aggression). Discussing hunter-gatherer “spatial organization”, Lee (1976) employed maps to show how patterns of “concentration and dispersion” promote inter-unit cooperation (“reciprocal access to resources”), flexible access to abundant and scarce resources via communication networks, and conflict-management via “social” separation. Lee (1976) found that “concentration and dispersion” increased unit size, on average, an effect that he showed was correlated with higher rates of population increase.

Clustering of “bands” at “patchy” sources of water and food may have induced social competition, leading to social selection favoring the evolution of collaboration, cooperation and behavioral diversity (e.g., social learning, imitation, tool use). Increased inter-individual contact with associated gene flow would be a byproduct of this model, discussed using primate examples, by Crook (1971, 1972; also, see Lee, 1976; Tanaka, 1976; Yellin, 1976). As a result, likelihoods of gene flow between reproductive units (“bands”) would increase, decreasing rates of population divergence and opportunities for speciation events. The fitness strategies discussed in this paragraph constitute adaptive mechanisms responding to environmental challenges, transforming a rugged landscape to a smoother one, enhancing lifetime reproductive success of individuals. Interpretations of the literature advanced in this article are testable empirically and quantitatively, and initial agent-based treatments might be conducted employing the data presented in Hill et al. (2011). It would also be beneficial to compare populations and regions exhibiting high, moderate, and low degrees of genetic differentiation in an attempt to discern similarities and differences among humans and their networks in each condition. For instance, is network strength greater or lesser across these conditions, and do these conditions and their features correlate with measures of success (e.g., income, education, rules governing immigration and emigration).

DISCUSSION

Frank’s (2011) treatment of the ways in which phenotypic diversity and phenotypic novelty serve individual interests by facilitating lifetime reproductive success provides a schema that can be applied to most human tactics and strategies. In particular, the model permits researchers to evaluate the extent to which human responses to environmental challenges promote problem-solving in a variety of ways. The mechanisms addressed herein, as well as other responses not discussed (altruism, spite, role-reversal, facultative division-of-labor), are expected to facilitate the individual’s avoidance, circumvention, delay, or confrontation with challenges sufficiently severe, risky, rare, or difficult to compromise lifetime reproductive success, including, the effects of morbidity and mortality. Mortality records for extant hunter-gatherers require quantitative treatments since humans are iteroparous breeders with a typical litter-size of one, characteristics associated with predictable environments in which adult survivorship is uncertain (Stearns, 1982; Millar & Zammuto, 1983). Breeding positions of individuals in mammal groups with the aforementioned characteristics are generally precarious (Millar & Zammuto, 1983), and the diverse phenotypic adaptations and novelties reviewed herein may increase environmental predictability by increasing individuals’ abilities to cope with stressors.

Following Hill (1976), humans appear to combine iteroparity with a high fertility rate and notably high “reproductive effort”. This combination of traits is not usually associated with mammals in heterogeneous (“rugged”) regimes (Millar & Zammuto, 1983). Similarly, most mammals are poor colonizers, and social mammals are generally constrained by their dependence upon conspecifics and group life (Cody, 1986), challenges that humans have overcome via the “concentration and dispersion” spatiotemporal patterns and multilevel societies described by Lee (1976), Tanaka (1976), Yellin (1976), and others (Hill et al. 1976), in combination with rule-governed repression of selfish behavior (“culture”). Investigating patterns of juvenile and female mortality should reveal relative survivorship, indicating whether or not “bet-hedging” strategies were featured among early Homo. This information, once modeled, may expose in greater detail thresholds of reproductive benefits that may have accrued to humans from responses designed to solve problems presented in lethal or sub-lethal regimes, mechanisms with byproducts decreasing likelihoods of reproductive isolation and the potential for speciation. Finally, students of mammalian taxa exhibiting noteworthy phenotypic diversity (e.g., mammals exhibiting multilevel social organization) must bear in mind that “plastic” traits will not yield the highest relative fitness in many regimes (Jones, 2005a, 2005b; Pigliucci, 2010, Frank, 2011, pp 2312-2313). Thus, differential reproductive costs and benefits of genotype x environment interactions require systematic investigation for the human case.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

I am grateful to Steven A. Frank for commenting on an earlier version of this paper. Jesse Marczyk’s extensive critique significantly improved the manuscript.

REFERENCES:

Alberts SC, Watts HE, Altmann J. 2003. Queuing and queue-jumping: long-term patterns of reproductive skew in male savannah baboons, Papio cynocephalus. Anim Behav 65: 821-840.

Andrews M, Kumaran K, Ramanan K, Stolyar A, Vijayakumar R, Whiting R. 2004. Scheduling in a cueuing system in asynchronously varying service rates. Prob Eng Info Serv 18: 191-217.

Bicca-Marques JC, Prates HM, Cunha de Agular FR, Jones CB. 2008. Survey of Alouatta caraya, the black-and-gold howler monkey, and Alouatta guariba clamitans, the brown howler monkey, in a contact zone, State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil: evidence for hybridization. Primates 49: 246-252.

Boardman JD, Domingue BW, Fletcher. 2012. How social and genetic factors predict friendship networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109: 17377-17381.

Brent LJN, Heilbronner SR, Horvath JE, Gonzalez-Martinez J, Ruiz-Lambides A, Robinson AG, Skene JHP, Platt ML. 2013. Genetic origins of social networks in Rhesus macaques. Sci Rep 3 doi: 10.1038/srep01042.

Brooks RC, Griffith SC. 2010. Mate choice. In: Westneat DF, Fox CW, editors. Evolutionary behavioral ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. p 416-433.

Burton-Chellew M, West SA. 2013. Prosocial preferences do not explain human cooperation in public goods games. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA doi.10.1073/pnas.1210960110.

Chaves, ÓM, Stoner KE, Arroyo-Rodriguez V. 2012. Differences in diet between spider monkey groups living in forest fragments and continuous forest in Mexico. Biotropica 44: 105-113.

Cody ML. 1986. Diversity, rarity, and conservation in Mediterranean climate regions. In: Soulé ME, editor. Conservation biology. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA. p 123-152.

Crockett CN. 1998. Conservation biology of the genus Alouatta. Int J Primatol 19: 549-578.

Crook JH. 1971. Sources of cooperation in animals and man. In: Eisenberg JF, Dillon WS, editors. Man and beast: comparative social behavior. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. p 236-260.

Crook JH. 1972. Sexual selection, dimorphism, and social organization in the primates. In: Campbell B. editor. Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971. Aldine, Chicago, IL. p 231-281.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt I. 1989. Human ethology. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.

Emmons LH. 1984. Geographic variation in densities and diversities of non-flying mammals in Amazonia. Biotropica 16: 210-222.

Fleming TH, Breitwisch R, Whitesides GH. 1987. Patterns of tropical vertebrate frugivore diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18: 91-109.

Fowler JH, Settle JE, Christakis NA. 2011. Correlated genotypes in friendship networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108: 1993-1997.

Frank SA. 2011. Natural selection. II. Developmental variability and evolutionary rate. J Evol Biol 24: 2310-2320.

Fruteau C, van Damme E, Noë R. 2013. Vervet monkeys solve a multiplayer “Forbidden Circle Game” by queuing to learn restraint. Curr Biol 23: 665-670.

Fu F, Nowak MA, Christakis NA, Fowler JH. 2012. The evolution of homophily. Sci Rep 2 doi: 10.1038/srep00845

Gardner A, West SA. 2010. Greenbeards. Evolution 64: 25-38.

Gavrilets S. 2012. On the evolutionary origins of the egalitarian syndrome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109: 14069-14074.

Geisel JT. 1976. Reproductive strategies as adaptations to life in temporally heterogeneous environments. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 7: 7-80.

Groves C. 2001. Primate taxonomy. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Grueter CC, Li D, Ren B, Li M. 2012. Overwintering strategy of Yunnan snub-nosed monkeys: adjustments in activity scheduling and foraging patterns. Primates doi.10.1007/s10329-12-0333-3

Hamilton IM. 2010. Foraging theory. In: Westneat DE, Fox CW, editors. Evolutionary behavioral ecology. New York: Oxford University Press, New York. p 177-193.

Hanya G, Matsubara M, Hayaishi S, Zamma K, Yashihiro S. 2008. Food conditions, competitive regime, and female social relationships in Japanese macaques: within-population variation. Primates 49: 116-125.

Henry AD, Pralat P, Zhang C-Q. 2011. How social and genetic factors predict friendship networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108: 8605-8610.

Hill KR, Walker RS, Božičević M, Eder J, Headland T, Hewlett, Hurtado AM, Marlowe F, Wiessner P, Wood B. 2011. Co-residence patterns in hunter-gatherer societies show unique human social structure. Science 331: 1286-1289.

International SNP Working Group (ISWG), 2001. A map of human genome sequence variation containing 1.42 million SNPs. Nature 409: 928-933.

Jones CB. 1987. Evidence supporting the Pleistocene forest refuge hypothesis for primates. Biotropica 19: 373-375.

Jones CB. 1997. Rarity in primates: implications for conservation. Mastozool Neotrop 4: 35-47.

Jones CB. 2005a. Behavioral flexibility in primates: causes and consequences. Springer, New York.

Jones CB. 2005b. Phenotype as developmental bridge: whither nature and nurture. Am J Psychol 118: 141-158.

Jones CB, Jost CA. 2007. Update on studies of Belizean primates, emphasizing patterns of species distribution. Lab Prim News 46: 1-5.

Jones CB, Young J, 2004. Hunting restraint by Creoles at the Community Baboon Sanctuary, Belize: a preliminary survey. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 7: 127-141.

Lee RB. 1976). !Kung spatial organization: an ecological and historical perspective. In: Lee RB, DeVore I, editors. Kalahari hunter-gatherers: studies of the !Kung San and their neighbors. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. p 73-97.

Lewontin RC. 1983. The organism as the subject and object of evolution. Scientia 118: 63-82.

Mahajan N, Martinez MA, Gutierrez NL, Diesendruck G, Banaji MR, Santos LR. 2011. The evolution of inter-group bias: perceptions and attitudes in Rhesus monkeys. J Pers Soc Sci 100: 387-405.

Matsuno T, Fujita K. 2009. A comparative psychophysical approach to visual perception in primates. Primates 50: 121-130.

Millar JS, Zammuto RM. 1983. Life histories of mammals: an analysis of life tables. Ecology 64: 631-635.

Milton K. 1980. The foraging strategy of howler monkeys: a study in primate economics. Columbia University Press, New York.

Nagasaka Y, Chao ZC, Hasegawa N, Notoya T, Fujii N. 2013. Spontaneous synchronization of arm motion between Japanese macaques. Sci Rep 3 doi: 10.1038/srep10051

Pigliucci M, 2010. Phenotypic plasticity. In: Pigliucci M, Müller GB, editors. Evolution: the extended synthesis. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. p 355-378.

Pimm SL, Gittleman JL. 1992. Biological diversity: where is it? Science 255: 940-945.

Pollick AS, DeWaal FBM. 2007. Ape gestures and language evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 8184-8189.

Rundle HD, Boughman JW. 2012. Behavioral ecology and speciation. In: Westneat DF, Fox CW, editors. Evolutionary behavioral ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. p 471-487.

Sareni B, Krähenbühl L. 1998. Fitness sharing and niching methods revisited. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 2: 97-106.

Scherbaum C, Estrada A. 2013. Selectivity in feeding preferences and ranging patterns in spider monkeys, Ateles geoffroyi yucatanensis, of northeastern Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Curr Zool 59: 125-134.

Servedio MR, Kopp M. 2012. Sexual selection and magic traits in speciation with geneflow. Curr Zool 58: 510-516.

Sporns O. 2011. Networks of the brain. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Tanaka J. 1976. Subsistence ecology of Central Kalahari San. In: Lee RB, DeVore I, editors. Kalahari hunter-gatherers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, UK. p 98-119.

Terborgh J, Winter B, 1980. Some causes of extinction. In: Soulé ME, Wilcox BA, editors. Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological perspective. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA. p 119-134.

West SA, Pen I, Griffin AS (2002) Cooperation and competition between relatives. Science 296: 72-75

West SA, Gardner A, Shuker DM, Reynolds T, Burton-Chellew M, Sykes EM, Guinee MA, Griffin AS. 2006. Cooperation and the scale of competition in humans. Curr Biol 16: 1103-1106.

Wheatley BP. 1982. Energetics of foraging in M. fascicularis and Pongo pygmaeus and a selective advantage of large body size in the orang’utan. Primates 23: 348-363.

Wilkie DS, Godoy RA. 2001. Income and price elasticities of bushmeat demand in lowland Amerindian societies. Cons Biol 15: 761-769.

Wilson DE, Reeder DM, eds, 2005. Mammal species of the world (2 volumes). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Wolf JB, Brodie III ED, Moore AJ. 1999. Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary process II. Selection resulting from social interactions. Am Nat 153: 254-266.

Xing J, Watkin WS, Witherspoon DJ, Zhang Y, Guthery SL, Mara R, Mowry BJ, Bulayeva K, Weiss RB, Jorde LB. 2009. Fine-scaled human genetic structure revealed by SNP microarrays. Genome Res 19: 815-825.

Yellin JE. 1976. Settlement patterns of the !Kung: an archaeological perspective. In: Lee RB, DeVore I, editors. Kalahari hunter-gatherers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. p 47-72.

Yun K, Watanabe K, Shimojo S. 2012. Interpersonal body and neural synchronization as a marker of implicit social interaction. Sci Rep doi.10.1038/srep00959

Citation: Jones CB. 2013. Constraints On Speciation In Human Populations: Phenotypic Diversity Matters. Hum Bio Rev, 2 (3), 263-279.

Contemporary "Experimental Literature" in America (Clara B. Jones)

Contemporary “Experimental Literature” In America, Emphasizing Poets, Poetry, And Poetry Journals*

by Clara B. Jones

As every writer knows, it is important to use words intentionally. However, the term, “experimental poetry,” is used variously in the literature and is difficult to define. Paul Stephens of Columbia University titled one of his papers, “What do we mean by 'literary' experimentalism?”, choosing to review uses of the term rather than to settle on a single definition. Stephens points out that several terms are employed interchangeably with “experimental literature,” especially, avant garde and Postmodern [rejection of the previous periods' universal truths (e.g., humanism, psychoanalysis, Marxism, Fascism)], and I have noticed in my research that the term, “innovative,” has been used to describe experimental poets who are female. As a sub-title for one of my manuscripts, I have used the words, “exploratory poems,” to describe innovative pieces, a figurative substitute for the word, “experimental.”

Writing, primarily, about experimental poetry, Stephens states that, historically, “experimental literature” has been associated with Symbolism, Surrealism, Dadaism, Imagism as well as, other schools (e.g., Futurism, Bauhaus) and that the term, “experimental,” did not come into common usage until the 1970s and 1980s. Despite the word's diverse interpretations and uses, Stephens agrees with Ann Lauterbach that, “in the world of poetry, to be experimental is sometimes taken to mean you have...an aversion to form....” I suggest a more restrictive version of the previous statement—that literary experimentation exhibits an aversion to the aesthetics dominating mainstream standards at a given time (the “canon”), especially, standards of form, language, and function.

Gertrude Stein as an exemplar of “experimental literature”

Speaking of Gertrude Stein and other experimental authors, Stephens asserts, “Writers like Stein...seek to confront us with massive blocks of information [e.g., “epic” poems] that...thwart what we traditionally expect from poetry as a formal expression of carefully crafted sound and meaning.” Using “conceptual” writing as an example, Stephens goes on to suggest that this form of experimental literature, in particular, poetry, “is not necessarily a careless literature,” contrary to some critics who have claimed that many experimental works are produced “arbitrarily.” Natalia Cecire considers Stein's epic poems “unreadable” and “boring,” suggesting that “it is not scale but rather something about her style that is an impediment to reading; not the how much, but simply the how.”, particularly, Stein's penchant for “repetition.” Yet, consistent with the idea that experimental literature opposes mainstream standards, Cecire states that Stein's poetry challenges “the status of reading” and that other experimental writers (e.g., Kenneth Goldsmith, Vanessa Place) negate “the need for reading in the traditional textual sense.”

The latter comment is reminiscent of current experiments in American poetry whereby information technology (e.g., texting, Twitter, Facebook, video, music) intersect with conventional ways to use words, and the highly-regarded, young experimental poet and internet artist, Steve Roggenbuck, promotes the terms, “internet poetry,” “vlogging formats,” “essay film,” “collage poetry,” as well as other sub-genres for utilizing technology and text (“emergent poetry” in Roggenbuck's lingo). One might suggest additional ways of describing media poetry, such as, “cyber-poetry” or “cyborg-poetics;” “neo-poetry” or “neo-poetics;” or ,“anti-poetry.” “Text art,” related to “media poetry,” though, a simpler sub-genre, is famously represented by the work of African-American artist, [William] Pope.L (University of Chicago), producing stylized printing composed as highly provocative statements, usually, innovative phrases about race, class, or gender. These novel ways of conceptualizing poetry and other text require a new aesthetics, a project in progress judging by Stephens' recent publications, including, a book and critical articles in the journal, Convolution, which he edits.

A case study of contemporary “experimental poetry”: “video erasure poetry”

I encountered Claire Peckham's media (or “internet”) poetry ( http://www.houndlit.com/claire-peckham-whispering-gallery) when reading an issue of the poetry journal, HOUND, a relatively new publication edited by Danielle Susi. The venue's webpage states, “We...tend to lean more toward experimental pieces and work that takes risks.” Based upon an e-mail interview with Claire, I learned that she is an “artist” in Seattle with a background in English (Creative Writing) and Photomedia, concentrating on “image and language.” More precisely, she said, “My work, among other things, is concerned with levels of perception and their intersections.” Claire began illustrating and binding books when she was about nine, finding that “games were not worth playing without characters; imaginary adventures were not interesting without plot.” When visiting libraries, she was, especially, interested in audiobooks. She reported, “I started saying, 'I am a poet.' as often as I said, 'I am a writer.'”

I asked Claire to relay her process for creating, “Whispering Gallery,” the “video erasure poem” published in HOUND. She responded, “'Whispering Gallery' was the culminating project for the last photography class I took at university. It was a class dedicated to exploring and re-appropriating the concept of books made explicitly as works of art. The piece is visual art and poetry [as well as sound], though I would not call it 'performance art'.” I asked Claire to be more specific about her process, in particular, what she means by a “video erasure poem.” She replied that her use of the term is “literal” and that “Whispering Gallery” was created “by erasing words from 'found' text,” specifically, entries in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). She thinks of the poem as a combination of “poetry and visual art” [and sound] with video as the format and, I would suggest, using video as the vehicle for the experiment, though the mediation of text by technology might, also, be considered a form of facilitation or enhancement.

Claire's current project is another “video erasure poem” using text “from an ancient study on the distance at which something becomes invisible to the human eye [perception].” Claire's work is one of several sub-genres of contemporary experimental poetry, and readers interested in exploring the wide variety of these forms are referred to journals such as Posit, Inpatient Press, Otoliths, Experiential-Experimental-Literature, in addition to, HOUND and other venues (see below). In most of these journals one observes that the most common techniques and strategies utilize the manipulation of electronic technology, including, sound and music, with text, though Roggenbuck and others point out that other poetic/textual forms are “emerging.”

Experimental Literature concerns artistic function as well as form

Paul Stephens, referred to above, points out that experimental literature has political and social components. I conduct research on experimental poetry, and it seems clear to me that movements in this genre have often served as mechanisms of resistance and forms of protest against political and social ideologies and institutions, as well as, opposition to mainstream aesthetics. These tactics are often utilized by members of marginalized groups, some of whom have been political activists as well as artists (e.g., Amiri Baraka, Nikki Giovanni, Sonia Sanchez). Contemporary experimental movements have included the Harlem Renaissance, the Beats, the San Francisco School, the New York School of Poetry, the L-A-N-G-U-A-G-E movement, and the Black Arts Movement. Women have been important participants in all of these initiatives, including, for example, the “innovative” poets Harryette Mullen, Alice Notley, Gloria Evangelina Anzaloúa, Susan Howe, Leslie Scalapino, Eileen Myles, and Alice Fulton. Among these female poets, Alice Notley's and Susan Howe's work has become part of the mainstream “canon,” suggesting, perhaps, that there may be a fuzzy line between what is conventional and what is “experimental” and that, as the Caribbean-British sociologist, Stuart Hall, has suggested, activities “at the margins” can impact the dominant, majority culture and, possibly, change it. In poetry, Allen Ginsberg might be a good example of Hall's theory and an interesting subject for research.

Finally, perhaps reflecting roles played by females as well as racial and ethnic minorities in experimental poetry projects, several active journals of experimental poetry have diverse editorial boards (e.g., Door Is Ajar, Counterexample Poetics, Rhizome, Winter Tangerine Review, Really System), and this phenomenon may differ significantly from the, purportedly, mostly white, mostly male, editorial boards of journals privileging formalist and other mainstream poetic forms (but see, for example, mastheads of the highly-regarded online mainstream poetry venues, Memorious and Blackbird, as well as the print journal, Prairie Schooner). Possible differences between experimental and mainstream journals is a topic worthy of systematic investigation. The present article is intended to alert readers to the burgeoning sub-genres in contemporary experimental literature driven, primarily, by varied combinations of technology, text, visual art, and sound or music and is a call for reviewers of journals and books to focus on the creative experiments of these writers and publications, part of a new avant garde in literature.

*Originally appearing in The Review Review, 2015

Current Art In America presents several events/concepts/neolisms that can be adapted to poetry [Poetry substituted for Art in what follows]...

1. Symposium of [Poetry] and Technology

2. Post-Globalism [idea: might Poets speak of Post-Formalism?]

3. Opera [Poem]

4. Basquiat and Queer Contemporary [Poetry]...

"Artist and poet Juliana Huxtable, California College of the Arts professor Dr. Jordana Saggese, Black Contemporary Art founder Kimberly Drew, and The Very Black Project (photographer Justin Fulton and artist-educator André D. Singleton) will discuss the influence of Jean Michel-Basquiat in a queer context. Their conversation will touch on the phenomena that precipitated his success, as well as the effects of his legacy within African diasporic communities." AiA

5. The Future of [Poetry] and Criticism in an Evolving Digital WorldThe Outsider [The Other?] [Poetry] Fair #generateideas

Adding to my comments inspired by issues of AiA...

1. would there be any rationale in dividing Poetry into 3 classes...1. Canon [poetry that has passes the test of time...Keats' "eternal"; 2. Applied [poetry whose relevance is time-limited...such as much poetry written by marginalized groups that might be categorized as, say, Lyrical Sociology or Political Science or, even, Journalism]; and, 3. Experimental...categories can be fluid [e.g., Alice Notley probably belongs in Canon as well as Experimental; Allen Ginsberg & Gertrude Stein, Experimental poets, have reached Canon status; none of these poets began their careers as part of the mainstream]...

2. [Poetry] Concert

3. Are there Racial Hierarchies in the Poetry world?

4. In addition to benefactors & museums, galleries are, also, important conduits for the proliferation of marginalized art into the mainstream...can Poets be more pro-active in linking their practices to organizations and institutions with "clout" in the Poetry world...other than, say, academic institutions & big publishing houses?...how, for example, can a poetry collective attract support from a benefactor...can we train poets to curate their own practices in order to create demand for their work?...is there a poetry market or can we create a poetry market comparable to the market for art...can Black Nationalist Poets like Morgan Parker negotiate terms in their interest as, say, Kara Walker & Pope.L have done, & Basquiat did, for their practices?...

Information Sonnet (Poem by Clara B. Jones)

Information Sonnet*

for Claude E. Shannon

1. p log p= 0

2. "If you can control information you can control people."

3. “*$$< ;<:^=]-{-#* <$^{ #$] _\{] 5-=5\!;]^ -#&$=@;]-$#, -] %^#^]=;]^{ ](^ %\3!-5 @-#< 6-](

<^{-=^{ ;#< 3^!-^&{.”¹

4. You are dissatisfied with objective reality but are not opposed to the status quo.

5. Identity is heterogeneous and complex.

6. Entomologists catch red flies for the museum in Chad where scientists study fossils fixed in amber—xanthous as toxic foam.

7. I(X; Y)= H(X) – H(X|Y)

8. Her bruise is the color of the space between your toe and your red sock.

9. "Information is only useful when it can be understood."

10. Everything depends on red socks.

11. If you were an Afrobot I couldn't take you home.

12. Transmitter--(x)--> (noisy) Channel--(y)--> Receiver

13. It is easier to turn genes on than to turn genes off

14. W= K log m

¹“Good advertising does not just circulate information, it penetrates the public mind with desires and beliefs.”

*First published in the online journal, otoliths (2018)

2nd Review of Pennine Hillsongs by M; Margo (by Clara B. Jones)

M; Margo

Pennine Hillsongs

(The Haunted Mask II)

2018

Ghost City Press

Unpaginated, 15 poems

PDF free or with donation

Reviewed by Clara B. Jones*

M; Margo [Margo Emm] and I are acquaintances. They are Editor of Zoomoozophone Review, an online journal of innovative poetry in which I have published several times. In my opinion, they are among the best avant garde poets of their generation—fearless and difficult to pigeon-hole. Reviewing their two previous books, I have labeled Margo a poet of “angst,” often focusing on disturbing personal themes to the exclusion of social or political ones. In Pennine Hillsongs, the poet continues to write about interior experiences; however, this collection delivers so much more. To my knowledge, it is the first published volume dedicated exclusively to “gender dysphoria”—discomfort or distress caused by incongruence between a person's sex assigned at birth and their gender identity.

The author, Managing Editor of Gold Wake Live and Publicity Director for Gold Wake Press, describes themselves as “a person who writes and resides in Cleveland, Ohio.” Pennine Hillsongs, a title in Ghost City Press' 2018 Summer Series, is heavily coded, and the puzzles begin on the cover page. The Pennine Hills are a range of mountains in England, and an online search yielded more than one musical group referring to these formations. The image on the title page, however, makes it clear that M; Margo intends to refer to The Pennines, a band comprised of four young men who, based on YouTube recordings, sing somewhat monotonal, mostly, instrumental, songs. The four individuals on the cover of Pennine Hillsongs presumably depict the band's members—their faces covered by masks, distortions of human faces. The book's parenthetical subtitle refers to a fictional children's horror book, The Haunted Mask II, whose main character is a meek little girl who purchases a Halloween mask that will not come off. M; Margo, thus, introduces the reader to their conflicted, uncomfortable, and, possibly, scary world.

The first poem, “song for xan,” refers to a character in a role-playing game who, according to information available online, has a “broken” mind, causing them to be institutionalized. Barring the poem's title, the page contains no words, only a depiction of concentric semi-circles appearing throughout the volume and unifying, even, stabilizing, the book from page to page. These semi-circles seem to represent the author's broken, or, incomplete, Self, preparing the reader for what will come. All of the poems in Pennine Hillsongs are hybrid, combining art and text, and the second poem, “the mirror,” continues our introduction to their dysphoria, depicting a distorted ghost with the sentence, “this is what my ghost will look like,” placed beneath the figure in semi-circular design. The ghost provides a stark image of what their disorder may feel like—including, disruption, sadness, vulnerability, exhaustion, and defeat. Repetition of words and phrases, a hallmark of this collection, is characteristic of other avant garde poets, most notably, Gertrude Stein.

Readers of traditional poetry may ask whether M; Margo's pieces are poetry at all. However, the works contain many conventional elements, in addition to, visual and pictorial images and appropriation of words of songs. Among the conventional characteristics are strong narrative statements. In “no dispute,” for example, they provide a brief manifesto with the words: “there can be no dispute that trans women are women//gender is a construct//that sex is also a construct//that i can wear makeup and a beard//....” Like many other poems written by LGBTQ artists, this one is utopian, envisioning a non-binary world. M; Margo continues their narrative of “gender dysphoria” in the poem, “song for selphie,” depicting distorted clowns and other disfigured images relieved, however, by their play on words (“selphie”/selfie). Additional cases of humor provided throughout the collection (e.g., “high coo,” “no more pennines”) demonstrate that they are capable of seeing beyond their present suffering, a perspective that may be comforting to others—whatever their present pain. The final poem in this collection “song for flash,” is lyrical, communicating the author's capacity for healing and their wish for intimacy, repeating, “i love you i miss you”—again and again as semi-circles. Ultimately, transgender or not, anyone can identify with M; Margo's journey from a very dark place to a hopeful one. They have created another noteworthy book of innovative poetry that readers of avant garde literature will appreciate and enjoy. I eagerly await their future works.

*Originally published in the Fall Issue (October 2018) of Bitchin' Kitsch

Review of Pennine Hillsongs by M; Margo [Margo Emm] (by Clara B. Jones)

M; Margo

Pennine Hillsongs

(The Haunted Mask II)

PDF available free online (see link)

2018

Ghost City Press (ghostcitypress@gmail.com)

Unpaginated (15 poems)

Mini-Review by Clara B. Jones*

“(just for your information, if I make a facebook post about struggling with gender dysphoria, maybe don't write a comment calling me 'man')” Margo Emm [M; Margo] on Facebook®, 7/13/2018

The purpose of this mini-review is to make readers aware of a new collection by Margo Emm (Publicity Director at Gold Wake Press) who is, in my opinion, one of the most interesting young avant garde poets writing today. They have published three books, Blueberry Lemonade (2015, Bottlecap Press), yr yr (2017, Ghost City Press), and, now, Pennine Hillsongs (The Haunted Mask II), part of the Ghost City Press Summer Mini-Chapbook Series. Kevin Bertolero, Founding Editor and Publisher of Ghost City Press, informed me (via e-mail, 7/9/2018) that the primary purpose of the summer series is to introduce new and emerging writers to the public. All titles are available on the press' website (ghostcitypress.com) at no cost, though, donations are gratefully accepted.

M; Margo's new book is a puzzle, and I decided to submit this mini-review hoping that readers would have time to enjoy the collection's challenges before the official end of Summer. Like many avant garde and post-modern works, however, it is not necessary to decode the text in order to appreciate it. Beginning with the collection's title page, words and image are metaphorical and symbolic. The Pennines are both a mountain range in England and the name of a British band consisting of four young men—wearing masks in the cover photo, apparently symbolic of a character in the book, The Haunted Mask 2. After listening to a couple of songs by the band—available on YouTube—I came away with the impression that the music is somewhat mono-tonal in nature and, mostly, instrumental. The rather sonorous mood created is appropriate to the tone of many of the author's poems in this chap, a collection of hybrid pieces composed of verbal and visual elements. As an aside, I read online that the band has donated proceeds to the mental health community, possibly, one factor drawing the author to this group. Elsewhere, I have called the writer a poet of “angst” because much of their work is a product of their dis-ease—personal experiences with anxiety, dysphoria, loss, and pain. One feature that distinguishes their work from many examples of the genre, however, is that, for the most part, they avoid self-pity and unrelieved morbidity.

In each (experimental) poem, words accompany or are superimposed upon broken concentric circles, and the texts, themselves, are often coded. Symbolically, circles may stand for wholeness or The Self. That each image of concentric circles is broken in some manner no doubt represents the writer's sense of incompleteness or, perhaps, dislocation. The first poem is titled, “song for xan”, a character in an internet role-play game whose “mind was broken” and who was institutionalized, according to information available online. While it is not possible to determine to what degree Pennine Hillsongs (The Haunted Mask II) is autobiographical, each poem conveys some sense of struggle (occasionally with humor), sometimes permitting the reader to identify with the author and to experience universal human emotions beyond the poet's personal domain. This collection coheres, in part, because the circular symbolism is consistent throughout the chap, emphasizing, at once, incompleteness, as well as, the possibility of a more coherent and universal sentience. Should you decide to read this collection, I feel certain that you will not have wasted your time. The author is “one to watch” as they mature as a poet and transition to a more stable place in the world. For those interested in placing this collection within the wider context of experimental literature, many issues arise regarding, for example, the significance of hybrid writing, the various uses of repetition in poetry, the distinction between subject and object, as well as, the meaning of “text art.” Finally, referring to innovative poetry more generally, interested readers will find similarities between the present author's writing and other avant garde poets, including, Gertrude Stein, Ron Padgett, Leslie Scalapino, C.D. Wright, and Myung Mi Kim.

https://ghostcitypress.com/2018-summer-microchap-series/pennine-hillsongs-the-haunted-mask-ii


*Originally published in The Curly Mind, September 2018

My years as a Behavioral Ecologist: 1973-----> (Clara B. Jones)

My years as a Behavioral Ecologist (1973----->) [Behavioral Ecology: study of how Dispersion [Distribution & Abundance] of organisms "maps" onto Dispersion of limiting resources in Time & Space--the [John Hurreel] Crook-ian Model, John Hurrel Crook

Behaviour. Supplement No. 10, The Evolution of Social Organisation and Visual Communication in the Weaver Birds (Ploceine) (1964)

#womeninscience #womeninbehavioralecology

1. The Science culture that I experienced 45 years ago might be called a "Brigade System"--hard-nosed, mostly male, rigid, rigorous--with no hand-holding. It was understood that many wouldn't survive the regime--we took this for granted--bad experiences were just part of the obstacle course. This system motivated me to be the best scientist I could be--emulating the work and standards of the premier Behavioral Ecologists of that time [especially, the early work of, John Hurrell Crook (birds, primates), Stephen C. Emlen (birds, humans, one of my professors), Jack Bradbury (bats, one of my professors), Ruth Buskirk (spiders, baboons, one of my professors), & Sandy Vehrencamp (birds, bats, a fellow graduate student)--the Behaviorist, M.E.P. Seligman, and the Social Biologist, Mary Jane West-Eberhard, were also critical to my early career].

2. Having said the above, we had mutual respect among all deserving parties, whatever their rank, and had a lot of fun.

3. A necessary and sufficient component of my own motivation was falling in love with fieldwork in 1973 [I was 30--a "late-bloomer"] after which nothing ever competed with my work/career. Another factor important to my progress was relieving myself of most caretaking responsibilities [in 1979].

4. At one point during my graduate training, I asked my undergraduate advisor, Harry Levin (linguistics), what was necessary to be successful as a scientist. He replied, "Learn to cope with humiliation." Afterwards, it occurred to me that I would need to have a "thick skin." It was, also, clear that I would have to make it work for me, by myself, on my own, but on others' terms--the terms set by those at the top of my fields--Behavioral Ecology, Social Biology, Ethology, and, to a lesser degree, Behaviorism. Serious Scientists would let me know--straightforwardly--when they thought I was not "measuring up." I could leave Science, or, I would need to find a way to "measure up." Combined with the ability to "hear" critical and negative feedback, I, eventually, enjoyed the challenges inherent to intense competition.

At another point--after  completing my Ph.D.--my major advisor, Ethologist (birds--Agapornis) William C. Dilger, told me, "You have done less with more than any other graduate student I've had." This feedback shook me; however, the lesson was clear--it is very difficult, indeed, to earn the right to be taken seriously by a serious Scientist. Indeed, in graduate school, it was standard not to call ones-self "Scientist" until a recognized scientist had labeled you "Scientist." Dilger's comment reinforced that I needed to take myself and my aspirations seriously if I, and, more importantly, my work, were to earn the opportunity to be taken seriously. A consequence of this experience has been that I consider it a female's responsibility--to herself, more, even, than to others-- to find a way to develop her potential to the fullest, relative to the highest standards of her field[s].

These words of wisdom & feedback from two highly-regarded scientists were instrumental in motivating me to be my best while understanding realities of the academic/professional/research landscape. The path is difficult, and there are no guarantees.

5. When I found my path in Behavioral Ecology to be difficult, I reminded myself that, if I didn't find a way to make it work, there was always another female breathing down my neck who was not defeated by trying or who was making it work.

6. It is central to who I am as a Scientist to view myself having a role comparable to a Judge of the Court. My colleagues and I, if taken seriously, get to "weigh in" on difficult decisions, using critical thinking, data, other components of scientific methods, and expertise.

7. It is important to me that I never used a sex/gender card, a race card, a class card, or a disability card.

8. I consider myself a feminist in the molds of Simone de Beauvoir and, especially, Francoise Giroud whose autobiography, I Give You My Word, which I read early in graduate school, changed my life forever. Everything changed after I read that book--combined with my first field season in 1973.

9. I free myself; others do not free me. All know the way.

10. So-called "imposter syndrome" represented important, valid feedback to me that something needed to be corrected. I did not deny my gut and brain. I figured it out. I realized, there was/is always another female prepared to take my place. That other female would have dealt with her sense of imposition, if she had such, and would have self-corrected.

11. As a woman of color (WOC) in Science who conducted fieldwork, I ran away, rapidly, from anyone who wanted to treat me with kid gloves or treat me differently than the non-marginalized person. This did not always work to my advantage or prove to be the shortest route to authenticity*, but it preserved my self-respect.

12. I think I have few, if any, complaints as a WOC in Science because: [1] I almost always see the glass as half-full rather than half-empty; [2] I take almost nothing personally--what another person does or says reflects on them, not me; [3] I have an uncanny ability to focus without distraction; [4] I try, and, mostly, succeed, at not multitasking, [5] I have an uncanny ability to compartmentalize; [6] I chose, and, continue to choose, very, very carefully, whose critical feedback I weight heavily; and, [7] I, simply, kept my nose to the grindstone [though, primarily for health reasons, I started & re-started quite a few times]. Related to the foregoing, I may be "tone deaf" about what the outspoken and activist young females want to achieve as scientists [I am thinking, particularly, of fieldworkers]. It has taken me a long time to "get" the notion that what I wanted out of a career is not, necessarily, what other females wanted/want. Decisions, choices were straightforward for me. I, simply, chose whatever option[s] would get me closer to my goal which was to be the best scientist I could be, given my talents & given the fact that I did not have higher-order quantitative skills. This is a very simple decision-rule. I, actually, think that many women in Science use this strategy.

13. Finally, just as a hunch, I would suggest that a critical factor in determining a female's success as a scientist is not so much whether she marries or has children but whether she assumes caretaking responsibilities. Whatever the case, I think these factors deserve further study. I would, especially, like to see intense investigation of what traits characterize those women who achieve high rank as scientists [as usual, I am, particularly, thinking of women who conduct fieldwork in the biological sciences]. For example, are there, beyond chance occurrences, married women with or without children who have careers like, say, Mary Willson's, or, perhaps, most notably, Louise Emmons'? If so, lets highlight these women. If not, why not? These are all issues that can be addressed empirically, including, consideration & tests of alternative hypotheses. If only by chance alone, sexism cannot account for all of the differences that we see between male scientists and female scientists in the same discipline. What are all of the factors that are at play?

14. Now, getting back to Science: Every material outcome has a mathematical proof.

*The hardest thing for anyone in Science is to earn the right to be taken seriously.

Clara B. Jones
929 Bonifant Street
Apt. 512
Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA
Cell: (828) 279-4429
E-mail: foucault03@gmail.com; mapcbj@gmail.com