What is it we actually do when we say we are conducting more-than-human ethnography? What is in the multispecies toolbox? This conversation gathered anthropologists with long-term investments in environmental research to discuss methods and exchange practical field experiences as a step towards addressing these questions. Our conversation centred around the notion of ‘ecography’ as a way to expand how we think about human societies (the ethnos in ethnography), embracing how societies are always emplaced and enmeshed within wider systems of relations (ecos). The concept, with its explicit reference to ethnography, allows us to sidestep some of the thorny epistemological debates around how, or indeed if it is possible and desirable, to cross the species boundary. For some, it remained an open question as to whether and to what extent ecography brought something novel to the table. Our conversation turned into a playful discussion about multispecies and more-than-human ethnography, and anthropology in the age of the Anthropocene.

In this article, I take the theme of this special issue on "The Enemy of Kinship and Kinship with the Enemies"as a provocation to challenge previous work, including my own, on convivial conservation and interspecies kin-making across Southeast Asia. How do species spoken of as "pests"and "enemies"fit into models of interspecies relatedness? What happens when we focus on our particularly vexed interspecies relationship to disease-bearing bugs? Drawing on the figure of the mosquito, I proceed to probe the limits both of Indigenous practices of making good relations and kinship with other species, and of modes of interspecies kin-making that underpin them. I end by speculatively forwarding the notions of "making peace"as an alternative way of coexisting with species whom people regularly refuse to make kin, or even friends.

The island nation of Singapore is a rich and fascinating point of departure to study human-animal histories, located as it is at the intersection of empires, trade networks, and regions (not quite Southeast Asian, but rather, a mosaic of different influences). Environmental historian Timothy P. Barnard’s two outstanding volumes—his single-authored Imperial Creatures (2019) and its follow-up, co-authored volume Singaporean Creatures (2024)—are essential reading for anyone wanting to better understand the environmental history of this tiny city-state. Taken together, these two books convincingly demonstrate how focusing on human-animal relations spurs us to rethink standard (often positivist) stories. In these works, however, the lives and politics of human populations continue to take precedence. As a result, newer scholarship coming out of critical animal studies and more-than-human studies—exploring the ways non-human beings are both shaped by and, in turn, shape history—is regularly sidelined.

The battle against invasive alien species (IAS) rages on, and is being driven by recently articulated global biodiversity agendas. While the current United Nations Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) seeks to ensure pristine, protected areas comprise 30 percent of the world’s total surface area by 2030, there remains much to be done for the remaining 70 percent, areas dominated by human habitat and industrial activities. Many non-native species have partly or wholly naturalized in these mixed ecosystems, becoming entangled in people’s livelihoods. We therefore argue that initiatives to not only aggressively eradicate such IAS but also to enroll the help of citizens in doing so will likely meet with resistance. Biodiversity dilemmas may arise where the cure may be worse than the disease; animal welfare standards may have to be sacrificed; and socioeconomic utility may have to be set aside. We therefore advocate the need for an alternative perspective on biodiversity justice and the proper place of IAS.