In this study, we only contacted the cor-responding author with the data request.This was because the International Com-mittee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)journal guidelines [12] recommends that itis the corresponding author whoresponds to data requests, and becausethis field can be automatically harvestedfrom reference databases and most likelyused by researchers undertaking multiplestudy data collections. Here, we foundthat the corresponding author of 85.9%of the 771 manuscripts was the primaryauthor and most likely to have collectedthe data. It could be argued that the cor-responding author does not have the finalsay whether the manuscripts’ researchdata were to be shared, and even if anECR was the corresponding author, he orshe would still need to gain permissionfrom the senior author. We agree that thismay have been a factor that preventedsome of the data from manuscripts withECRs as corresponding authors frombeing published. However, it did notappear to apply to the majority of studies,and career stage of the correspondingauthor remained a significant factor indetermining whether or not the data weresubmitted for public data archiving.

Concluding RemarksThis study demonstrated that there arestill considerable barriers to public dataarchiving in the field of animal bioteleme-try research. Furthermore, these barrierswere not overcome by negating much ofthe researcher concerns reported fromquestionnaire-type surveys [1,6,7,9].These surveys however have primarilyfocused upon senior scientists, and thisstudy suggests the views of senior sci-entists around data sharing differ fromthat of ECRs. We argue that fear of datamisuse [3] and perceived lack of benefitstill play significant roles in a researchers’decision to not publicly archive data. Tocounter this, we suggest the communityto develop clear rules around the sharingand reuse of data. These could include

(i) notification to the data custodian whenand by whom data are downloaded;(ii) clear guidelines around coauthorshipor acknowledgement, depending uponthe way the data have been reusedand the percentage of data used withinthe overall analysis; and (iii) rules set byjournals at the time of submission, similarto that currently used for conflict of inter-est and other ethical issues. We alsomake a plea to senior researchers thatthey allow their ECRs to go as corre-sponding authors on manuscripts,because this results in a significantlygreater likelihood of research data beingpublicly archived.

AcknowledgmentsWe acknowledge all corresponding authors who

responded to our requests.We thank Peggy Newman

for public data archiving the data sets.

Supplemental InformationSupplemental information associated with this article

can be found [116_TD$DIFF]online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.

2018.11.010.

1Research Institute for the Environment & Livelihoods,

Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT, 0810, Australia2Australian Institute of Marine Science, Darwin, NT, 0810,

Australia

*Correspondence:

hamish.campbell@cdu.edu.au (H.A. Campbell).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.11.010

References1. Kim, Y. and Stanton, J.M. (2012) Institutional and individual

influences on scientists’ data sharing practices. J. Com-put. Sci. Educ. 3, 47–56

2. McNutt, M. et al. (2016) Liberating field science samplesand data. Science 351, 1024–1026

3. Tenopir, C. et al. (2011) Data sharing by scientists: prac-tices and perceptions. PLoS One 6, 21

4. Reichman, O.J. et al. (2011) Challenges and opportunitiesof open data in ecology. Science 331, 703–705

5. Piwowar, H.A. and Vision, T.J. (2013) Data reuse and theopen data citation advantage. PeerJ 1, e175

6. Nguyen, V.M. et al. (2017) To share or not to share in theemerging era of big data: perspectives from fish telemetryresearchers on data sharing. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 74,1260–1274

7. PARSE.Insigh (2009) First [117_TD$DIFF]Insights into Digital Preservationof Research Output in Europe, PARSE.Insight

8. Roche, D.G. et al. (2015) Public data archiving in ecologyand evolution: how well [118_TD$DIFF]are we doing? PLoS Biol. 13, 12

9. Mills, J.A. et al. (2016) Solutions for archiving data in long-term studies: a reply to Whitlock et al. Trends Ecol. Evol.31, 8587

10. Campbell, H.A. et al. (2015) Finding our way: on thesharing and reuse of animal telemetry data in Australasia.Sci. Total Environ. 534, 79–84

11. Vines, T.H. et al. (2014) The availability of research datadeclines rapidly with article age. Curr. Biol. 24, 94–97

12. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2017)Recommendations for the [119_TD$DIFF][120_TD$DIFF]Conduct, Reporting, Editingand Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/

Book Review

Domestication ofExtended HeredityHeikki Helanterä1,*

The existence of inheritance not based onDNA is fact. However, the implications ofsuch ‘extended inheritance’ for evolution-ary biology are under intense debate. Thisbook by Bonduriansky and Day (hereafterB&D) is both an illuminating summary ofkey findings and a balanced take on thedebate [1]. The conceptual issues play aminor role; this is a book written by evo-lutionary biologists with a biological mes-sage and audience in mind, and biologistsfrom diverse fields, as well as any scholars

98 Trends in Ecology & Evolution, February 2019, Vol. 34, No. 2

interested in modern evolutionary biology,should find the book accessible andinteresting.

B&D chart the diversity on nongeneticinheritance, from epigenetic marksthrough cellular inheritance and parentaleffects to cultural. They do this throughplentiful examples that range from mod-ern [2] to nearly forgotten [3]. They visual-ize a simple theoretical framework forillustrating the evolutionary consequen-ces of such diversity, based on the Priceequation [4]. They look ahead and brieflyexplain some potential implications ofextended heredity for perennial themesin evolutionary biology, such as the evo-lution of mate choice, aging, and specia-tion, all with a healthy balance ofenthusiasm and critique that sets themapart from both the boldest proponentsand the most resolute critics of extendedheredity as a fundamentally importantphenomenon.

Setting the debates into context is greatlyhelped by how B&D unravel the sideliningof nongenetic inheritance from the mod-ern synthesis. Some reasons for this areexplicable, such as the overwhelmingsuccess of gene-centric explanations,model organism-based biases and meth-odological limitations of the time, andpowerful if sometimes slightly naïve dem-onstrations of how acquired characteris-tics (like amputated tails) are not inherited.But some are truly puzzling for a modernreader, such as the insistence on one‘true’ mechanism of inheritance only,and most curiously the exclusion of non-genetic inheritance because it was notcompatible with what was known aboutgenes. This B&D rightly rank ‘among themost influential circular arguments in thehistory of science’.

This is not just fascinating history but res-onates importantly with the currentdebate. Even if exclusive emphasis ongenetic transmission has proved an

immensely successful method in evolu-tionary biology, making gene transmis-sion an exclusive determinant of howorganisms get their traits can be problem-atic outside evolutionary biology. This isvivid in the account of how effects ofmaternal alcohol consumption on fetuseswere neglected as incompatible with thecentral dogma of molecular biology. Withmore and more genomic information athand, it is all the more important toremember that each organism is morethan its genes, even if genes have a spe-cial standing in evolutionary explanation.

The history of pitting Mendelian transmis-sion genetics against other forms oninheritance as a ‘one or the other’ choicestill seems to burden research on nonge-netic inheritance. There is a temptation tobring extended inheritance into the fold ofmodern synthesis, by claiming either thatextended inheritance has evolved as anadaptation of the genome or that it isunder genetic control [5]. However,B&D make it abundantly clear that theexciting science lies in the interactionsof inheritance mechanisms, rather thaninsisting on demonstrations that nonge-netic inheritance works without anygenetic element whatsoever involved.

Nongenetic inheritance may help popu-lations reach adaptive peaks faster, anddifferent forms of nongenetic inheritancevary in their implications for phenotypicchange and their importance acrossorganisms and traits. B&D discuss thisdiversity in the urgent context of under-standing the future of life under rapidenvironmental change. However, thisdiversity is also a model system forhow the conditions for evolution evolve[6]. An inheritance system may help pop-ulations reach adaptive peaks in certainkinds of environments, but this does nottell us how the system arose and spread.Similar to, for example, the recombina-tion and mutation rates and genomecomplexity that underlie evolvability [7],

we need a comprehensive, critical look atthe possible adaptive origins and distri-bution of nongenetic inheritance mecha-nisms. Such a synthesis, while still adistant goal, requires theoretical under-standing, broad comparative and exper-imental work, and an understanding ofthe relative features of environmentalvariation.

I adapt terminology from Ullica Seger-stråle’s wonderful history of sociobiology[8] to summarize the status of extendedinheritance that B&D present (withoutimplying any further similarities betweenthe two debates). The story of nongeneticinheritance can be seen as a story ofplanters with novel ideas and weeders,who critically defend the current way ofdoing science from ideas seen as unor-thodox, poorly empirically supported, oroutright impossible. This book shows thatif at some point ideas of nongenetic inher-itance were weeds in the garden of themodern evolutionary synthesis, they canbe domesticated.We should look forwardto what they have to offer to us underfurther breeding.

Extended Heredity – A New Understanding of

Inheritance and Evolution by Russell Bonduriansky and

Troy Day, Princeton University Press, 2018. US$29.95/

£24.00, hbk (279 pp.) ISBN [2_TD$DIFF]978-0-691-157672

1Ecology and Genetics Research Unit, University of Oulu,

Oulu, Finland

*Correspondence: heikki.helantera@oulu.fi (H. Helanterä).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.10.008

References1. Bonduriansky, R. and Day, T. (2018) Extended Heredity – A

New Understanding of Inheritance and Evolution, PrincetonUniversity Press

2. Johannes, F. et al. (2009) Assessing the impact of trans-generational epigenetic variation on complex traits. PLoSGenet. 5, e1000530

3. Jennings, H.S. (1937) Formation, inheritance and variationof the teeth in Difflugia corona. A study of the morphogenicactivities of rhizopod protoplasm. J. Exp. Zool. 77, 287–336

4. Price, G.R. (1970) Selection and covariance. Nature 227,520–521

5. Dickins, T.E. and Rahman, Q. (2012) The extended evolu-tionary synthesis and the role of soft inheritance in evolution.Proc. Biol. Sci. 279, 2913–2921

6. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2009) Darwinian Populations and Natu-ral Selection, Oxford University Press

Trends in Ecology & Evolution, February 2019, Vol. 34, No. 2 99

7. Lynch, M. (2007) The Origins of Genome Architecture,Sinauer Associates

8. Segerstråle, U. (2000) Defenders of the Truth, Oxford Uni-versity Press

Book Review

A Modern-Day DarwinCaitlin R. Kight1,*

Katrina van Grouw is immensely proud ofher latest book, Unnatural Selection. Shementioned this during a book tour appear-anceat TetZooCon,where shegaveoneofthe event’s most popular and well-attended presentations, and on socialmedia, where she bemoaned the fact thather publication has not had much press.While these are probably common senti-ments amongartists, not all creators areasjustified as van Grouw in lodging thesecomplaints; Unnatural Selection truly is amasterpiece and deserves to be both readand praised widely.

What sets Unnatural Selection apart – notjust from van Grouw’s previous works,

which also feature animals and art [1,2],but also from other books in general – isits subject matter. It is a book about evo-lution, but not about evolution as it istypically thought of, discussed, or stud-ied: it is about the evolution that humanshave knowingly facilitated (although likelywithout using this term for it) in domesti-cated animals.

Intended as a celebration of, and hom-age to, Charles Darwin’s The Variation ofAnimals and Plants under Domestication[3] – published 150 years ago this year –Unnatural Selection looks deeper into atruth that Darwin himself had only begunto appreciate: selective breeding is evo-lution, and there is much to be gainedfrom joining up the more-or-less distinctbodies of knowledge associated withthese two concepts.

EnterUnnaturalSelection,which recognisesboundaries only long enough to smashthrough them. For example, van Grouwreferences not only classic academic work(e.g., Belyaev’s canonical fox experiments)but also a slew of more obscure and nichestudies from, for example, the poultry andpet industries.Shealso incorporatesunpub-lished – but profoundly insightful – wisdomshared by contemporary fanciers. vanGrouw and her husband even undertooktheir own experiments for the book, andmany of Unnatural Selection’s 400-some(stunning) illustrations were produced usingskeletons that van Grouw sourced and pre-pared in her own home.

This is one of the reasons why it is difficultto discuss the book without discussingthe author: van Grouw literally got herhands dirty to research and write Unnat-ural Selection and her earthy voice isstrong throughout. She references herown and her husband’s experiences rear-ing and observing domestics and sharesremarkable viewpoints that stem fromunderstanding both art and science –

two disciplines with which the author isstrongly affiliated without being entirely aninsider. This is intended as a compliment:van Grouw has all the skills and compre-hension of a dedicated expert in eacharea, yet also brings the outsider’s pro-pensity to ask ‘but why?’ and ‘well, whynot?’ in insightful, fruitful ways.

The most obvious demonstration of herunique perspective is howwell she utilisesskeletons – a largely unfamiliar sight to thevast majority of readers, including even agood portion of biologists – to strip awayunnecessary complexities and get downto the bare bones (yes, literally) of inter-esting features and processes. vanGrouw’s beautiful anatomical illustrationsare as informative and scientifically rigor-ous as a statistical plot but also as aes-thetically pleasing as the pieces hangingin an art gallery; it’s no surprise that theauthor sells both books and prints whenshe makes her book tour appearances orthat her presentation slides contain eye-catching bespoke imagery and anima-tions to convincingly emphasise her oralmessage.

Given her interdisciplinary career trajec-tory, van Grouw is perfectly placed tocommunicate in a way that is conversa-tional but also precise, confidently knowl-edgeable, and often poetic. It seems tooeasy to make a comparison with Darwin,yet it would be remiss not to; he, too,fashioned an illuminating and mind-changing narrative founded on a wealthof experimental evidence.

Between the lines of her excellent expla-nation of evolution, van Grouw uses thisDarwinian rhetorical technique to argue arange of points that both scientists andnonscientists could benefit from examin-ing – for example: rigid scientific views[5_TD$DIFF][2_TD$DIFF]often cannot stand up to the messinessof the real world; a ‘scientist’ is notjust someone who does science

100 Trends in Ecology & Evolution, February 2019, Vol. 34, No. 2