The Riverine Barriers Hypothesis (RBH) posits that tropical rivers can be effective barriers to gene flow, based on observations that range boundaries often coincide with river barriers. Over the last 160 years, the RBH has received attention from various perspectives, with a particular focus on vertebrates in the Amazon Basin. To our knowledge, no molecular assessment of the RBH has been conducted on birds in the Afrotropics, despite its rich avifauna and many Afrotropical bird species being widely distributed across numerous watersheds and basins. Here, we provide the first genetic evidence that an Afrotropical river has served as a barrier for birds and for their lice, based on four understory bird species collected from sites north and south of the Congo River. Our results indicate near-contemporaneous, Pleistocene lineage diversification across the Congo River in these species. Our results further indicate differing levels of genetic variation in bird lice; the extent of this variation appears linked to the life-history of both the host and the louse. Extensive cryptic diversity likely is being harbored in Afrotropical forests, in both understory birds and their lice. Therefore, these forests may not be “museums” of old lineages. Rather, substantial evolutionary diversification may have occurred in Afrotropical forests throughout the Pleistocene, supporting the Pleistocene Forest Refuge Hypothesis. Strong genetic variation in birds and their lice within a small part of the Congo Basin forest indicates that we may have grossly underestimated diversity in the Afrotropics, making these forests home of substantial biodiversity in need of conservation.

No abstract

Domestic service is one of the few available jobs open to Mexican and Central American immigrant women, individuals who have migrated to the US to escape poverty in their home countries. Economic inequalities between countries are mirrored in a growing split within the US, where immigrant women have become the serving classes that sustain the lifestyles of the (native‐born) professional and managerial workforce. In LA, immigrant women often take up domestic work, remaining in jobs where they do not earn enough and experience daily humiliations. In this paper, I examine two groups that seek to mitigate the most abusive aspects of paid domestic employment in Los Angeles. Although they address significant and enduring issues, neither group is entirely successful. I ask how immigrant domestic workers define themselves, their experiences in the United States, and their jobs—and how these understandings affect the functioning of both groups.

In Domestic Economies, Susanna Rosenbaum examines how two groups of women—Mexican and Central American domestic workers and the predominantly white, middle-class women who employ them—seek to achieve the "American Dream." By juxtaposing their understandings and experiences, she illustrates how immigrant and native-born women strive to reach that ideal, how each group is indispensable to the other's quest, and what a vital role reproductive labor plays in this pursuit. Through in-depth ethnographic research with these women at work, at home, and in the urban spaces of Los Angeles, Rosenbaum positions domestic service as an intimate relationship that reveals two versions of female personhood. Throughout, Rosenbaum underscores the extent to which the ideology of the American Dream is racialized and gendered, exposing how the struggle for personal worth and social recognition is shaped at the intersection of motherhood and paid employment.

No abstract