The Trinidadian guppy is emblematic of parallel and convergent evolution, with repeated demonstrations that predation regime is a driver of adaptive trait evolution. A classic and foundational experiment in this system was conducted by John Endler 40 years ago, where male guppies placed into low‐predation environments in the laboratory evolved increased color in a few generations. However, Endler's experiment did not employ the now typical design for a parallel/convergent evolution study, which would employ replicates of different ancestral lineages. We therefore implemented an experiment that seeded replicate mesocosms with small founding populations of guppies originating from high‐predation populations of two very different lineages. The different mesocosms were maintained identically, and male guppy color was quantified every four months. After one year, we tested whether male color had increased, whether replicates within a lineage had parallel phenotypic trajectories, and whether the different lineages converged on a common phenotype. Results showed that male guppy color generally increased through time, primarily due to changes in melanic color, whereas the other colors showed inconsistent and highly variable trajectories. Most of the nonparallelism in phenotypic trajectories was among mesocosms containing different lineages. In addition to this mixture of parallelism and nonparallelism, convergence was not evident in that the variance in color among the mesocosms actually increased through time. We suggest that our results reflect the potential importance of high variation in female preference and stochastic processes such as drift and founder effects, both of which could be important in nature.

We conducted a document analysis that explored publication ethics and authorship in the context of population biobanks from both a theoretical (e.g. normative documents) and practical (e.g. biobank-specific documentation) perspective. The aim was to provide an overview of the state of authorship attribution in population biobanks and attempt to fill the gap in discussions around the issue. Our findings demonstrate that the most common approach adopted in both the normative and biobank-specific documentation is acknowledgment. A co-authorship approach was second and highlighted concerns surrounding the fairness of imposing authorship of the scientific leadership as a condition to access data and biosamples, as well as the alignment with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ criteria such as what is deemed a significant contribution and how to ensure accountability. Based on these findings, we propose a three-prong approach, that may be cumulative, to address the issue of authorship attribution in the context of population biobanks, namely 1) the biobank should be appropriately acknowledged; 2) an invitation for co-authorship should be made based on the spirit of collaboration and provided a substantial contribution has been made; and 3) a citation/referencing option should be available.