English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In a curious comment on our PNAS Perspective (1), Westaway and Lyman (2) offer two Australian zooarchaeological case studies—one involving eggshells and the other dingoes—that they argue undercut one of our main points: that archaeological data and deep time perspectives have much to offer conservation biology. Neither example provides a specific substantive critique of our perspective: there are no dingoes in our article (1), no eggshells, and we mention the long and rich record of human management and alteration of Australian environments only briefly. Nor do we suggest that all archaeological assemblages can effectively inform current conservation biology efforts. Such datasets obviously vary in their quality …

Reply to Westaway and Lyman: Emus, dingoes, and archaeology’s role in conservation biology