 Hi, everyone, and welcome to this Science Exchange webinar. My name is Sam Illingworth, I'm a senior lecturer in science communication at the University of Western Australia, and the purpose of these Science Exchange series are really to get an introduction to the amazing research that's done at the university in the Faculty of Science and to really think about, you know, how that research can impact and does impact on the rest of society as well. So we've got a really exciting talk today, so we're going to be hearing from Dr Cyril Gruta. And from 2005 to 2009, Cyril did his PhD at the University of Zurich in Switzerland, which involved a pioneering 20-month study on the social organisation and ecology of wild snub-nosed monkeys in China. From 2009 to 2011, Cyril worked as a postdoc researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig in Germany, and his postdoc included 18 months of research on the socio-ecology of the mountain gorilla population in Rwanda. In 2012, Cyril took up a faculty position in the School of Anatomy, Physiology and Human Biology, now the School of Human Sciences at UWA, where he is now a senior lecturer. Cyril's primary research interests light at the interface of behavioural ecology and evolutionary anthropology and include the evolution of primate human sociality and a second focus of research pivots on how certain primates are able to cope with the demands of living in marginal montane environments in both the temperate zone and the tropics. And there's going to be lots of time at the end for you to put in your questions. There'll also be a recording of this webinar as well. So, in this seminar, Cyril will be talking about the social organisation of our primate relatives to explore the origins of tolerance in human sociality. So, Cyril, please take it away. All right. Thank you very much, Sam, for the introduction. So, I guess I can keep this very short since you've already highlighted my career milestones. There's no need to go into that. I just briefly wanted to say that I'm a biological anthropologist and primatologist. So, I use an evolutionary framework when trying to understand primate behaviour and human behaviour. So, first of all, we really have to recognise that humans are animals like any other and that we can just explain our behaviour using the same models used to explain the behaviour of, say, baboons. In 1838, Charles Darwin, he wrote in one of his notebooks, he who understands baboon would do more towards metaphysics than Locke and by Locke meant John Locke, the philosopher. So, what this means is that only if we zoom out and compare our behaviour with that of our closest relatives in nature, will we be able to understand the evolutionary origins of what makes us human. So, primates are an important point of reference and I will use evolutionary theory today as my navigational guide, so to speak. So, my general research interests include the evolution of primate and human sociality and my particular interests revolve around the evolution of metagrwp organisation. What is metagrwp organisation? By metagrwp organisation, we mean things like tolerance between groups, cooperation between groups, and also the formation of higher-level groupings or multi-level societies, and you will hear more about those later on. So, why do we care about this? I would argue that understanding sociality at multiple levels is important because it has implications for a lot of things. It has implications for disease transmission, for example. It has implications for social transmission, how smart we are, how handsome we are. All these things are influenced by living in a metagrwp context, and you will hopefully understand this better towards the end of my talk. So, if we look at our closest relatives in nature, the non-human primates, relations between groups are often characterised by animosity and that's because of competition over resources and mates. In primates, females usually compete over food and males compete over females. Sometimes females also compete over males and males also compete over food, but that's just the classic framework. But on the other hand, there are instances of peaceful encounters, mutual tolerance, and temporary fusion between groups. And the prime example is peacefully intermingling bonobo communities. So here, sex plays a very important role in keeping peace. Females are often seen rubbing their genitals together, so this has a calming effect, which makes it easier for two groups to aggregate into a larger entity. And mutual tolerance between groups is nicely exemplified by species that live in so-called multi-level societies. So here's a definition of multi-level society. So these are essentially core social units that maintain proximity and coordinate activities with other core units, and thereby form one or more successively higher levels of grouping. And this is a topic that I've been working on for quite a while. We've had a few recent high-profile publications on this topic, and I will summarise some of that work in a minute. So where in the animal kingdom do we find such multi-level societies? They actually show quite a patchy distribution on the tree of life. They have evolved in a few primate species. For example, these haemodraeus baboons and these geladas and the snubnose monkeys that you will hear more about later on. And they are also found in a few non-primates such as elephants and whales. So here you can see the structure of a multi-level system for three different species. There's some differences among species, but what all of them have in common is that there are two social levels. There's the relatively stable one-mail unit, and then there's the higher level band. And interestingly, there's also bachelor groupings here at the periphery of the band. And these bachelor groups, they play an important role in our understanding of multi-level societies, and you'll hear more about that later. All right, let's shift gear and talk a bit about humans. In humans, intergroup relationships obviously spend a whole gamut from extreme hostilities all the way to tolerance, affiliation and alliances. And it's really that ability to overcome hostility and form cooperative and tolerant relationships with other groups that I want to emphasise today. Andropologist George Murdoch wrote in 1949, nowhere on earth do people live regularly in isolated families. So humans essentially live in a multi-level social system where smaller units are embedded within larger ones. But compared to primates, we have much more expansive interaction networks. If you look at hunter-gatter societies, you can see there's families that are embedded within bands. And these bands are embedded within higher level groupings. So in my opinion, the evolution and function of large-scale social integration in humans and primates remains an exciting, unresolved area of research in biological anthropology and primatology. So how do I go about studying this? I've used a multi-pronged approach to address this question. I've done field research on suitable model species. I've done comparative analysis looking at the evolution of social traits in different primate species. I've done cross-cultural analysis. I've looked at different human populations. So this brings me to my first major line of inquiry, which is on primate multi-level societies. I conducted a two-year study on the black and white snob-nose monkey in China. This is an intriguing and endangered species that was known to live in groups of several hundred, but very little was known about its social organisation. We didn't know how those groups were structured, so I wanted to solve that mystery. So to do so, I embarked on an adventure in a remote corner of China, the mountains of northwestern Yunnan province near the border to Myanmar and Tibet. So this is really the eastern edge of the Himalayas. Some of these mountains in the background here, they are 6,000 meters high. And as you can see from this picture, the terrain is very rugged and the slopes are pretty steep. And last year, a group of UWA undergrad students actually took part in a mobility program and they had a chance to visit this fascinating part of the world. So I followed my study subjects for roughly 20 months. I established contact with my study subjects on an average of 12 days per month. It wasn't easy to locate them in this vast landscape here. Initially, they were not habituated to humans, so I basically copied Jane Goodall in my research approach. I used a spotting scope to scan the group and record their behaviour at a distance. I had no idea how many monkeys I was studying. I had to wait for several months to get an opportunity to obtain a reliable group count. And that happened when the group crossed a gully in the forest. And the total number of individuals that I counted in the group was 407. And that's an extremely large group by primate standards. And this video here gives you an impression of how it looked like when the entire group started crossing this gap in the canopy, moving terrestrially and giving me an opportunity to count them and to gain some insights into their social organisation. So when the group crossed an open area, I recorded the time intervals between successively passing individuals and I used these time intervals to detect subunits within the larger group. So here you can see the time intervals between sequentially arriving males and you can see that the males are not randomly distributed across the group. So those peaks here, they occur at regular intervals and this is most compatible with core units that are embedded in a larger multi-level society. And you can also see that here at the periphery, the males are more clumped and these are the bachelor groups that let the progressions. And when I scanned the monkeys, I found that in only 1% of observations was another male, the nearest neighbour of a scanned male. So this means that the males kept the distance from each other and the males were typically surrounded by adult females. And this is also evidence that we're dealing here with core one-male units, one-male multi-female units that are part of a larger band. So I used these observations of spatial or physical distancing, so to speak, to gain insights into their social organisation. So now we've established that these guys live in a multi-level society, but what is the function or the adaptive benefit of living in a multi-level society? Well, before we can address that question, we need to know what allows them to form such large bands. Presumably they must face relatively little feeding competition or ecological constraints, otherwise they wouldn't be able to live in super large groups. There would be too much competition. So we had to look at their resource space. What do they eat? And on an annual basis, it was almost 70% lichens. That's an unusual food for primates. I've also tried it. If you cook it long enough and if you add some chilies, it's actually not that bad. And these lichens are fairly abundant and they're also an important winter fallback food when preferred foods such as bamboo shoots and fruits are not available. So now we can turn to the function of multi-level societies. And these bachelor groups that I mentioned early on, they are an important part of the equation here. They habitually follow the reproductive units, the 1 million units, and they wait for an opportunity to challenge and oust a leader male. So we argued that we also know that these bachelor's committee infanticide, so they kill infants that are not their own. So we speculated that the 1 million unit males, they may be better protected from attacks by bachelor groups when they are part of a larger band. So this is safety numbers. So here on the left side, the units are spread all over the place, but here on the right side, they are part of a larger collective. So they should be safer when they're part of a larger collective. So we wondered if the 1 million unit leaders collaborate to keep those nasty bachelor's at bay who are trying to get a share of the cake, so to speak. So to get to the bottom of this, I travelled to the Shenlongjia Forest in Central China in Hubei province, that's where COVID-19 started, near the Three Gorges Dam. This is where the Chinese Yeti lives apparently, but I wasn't interested in the Yeti, I was interested in a local population of golden snub-nosed monkeys, and I wanted to find out if such collective action or collective defence among social units exists in a multi-level society. There's a band of four 1 million units and one bachelor unit in the local population. What's really important is that the band was habituated, so that means those monkeys, they learned to ignore human observers, so it was easy for us to follow them and study them. And we did observe males of different units showing collective action. So these are 1 million unit leader males here. We saw them collectively chasing and expelling members of the bachelor group. We also saw them going on patrols together, and we saw them scanning the surroundings for possible intruders. And interestingly, rates of collective action were much higher during the mating season when the risk of incursions by bachelors was higher. This is another subtopic that I want to briefly address. I recently started exploring how sexual selection operates in a multi-level society. Sexual selection is one of Darwin's great insights. Very simply put, sexual selection is what makes male successful at competition with other males and what makes males attractive to females. And one outcome of sexual selection is extravagant ornaments, such as these luscious red lips that we see in snub-nose monkeys and also this beautiful butt here. These are all sexually selected traits. And these guys also show some striking resemblance to some celebrities out there. So we reason that male ornaments should be important in large groups where individuals are surrounded by lots of other individuals, which they don't know very well. In a situation like this, you can't individually recognize your fellow group members and you can't interact with all of them to get to know their quality and their status. So if you are a female, you can simply look at those ornaments to find out if a guy is a high quality mating partner. And if you are a male, you can assess how strong a rival is by looking, for example, at his nose or his beard for that matter. So there's no need to fight. So we predicted that ornaments should be more pronounced in large, more anonymous groups and also in species with multi-level societies. Why? Because in multi-level societies, the one male unit males, they are in close contact all the time, so there's heightened conflict potential. So the males should invest in these patches of status to advertise their quality and strength. So we did a comparative study across primates. I have to show you some graphs, but they're not too difficult to understand. So here you can see a positive correlation between group size and ornamentation. So essentially primates that live in larger groups, they are more brightly ornamented. And we also found that primates that live in these multi-level societies, they have higher levels of ornamentation. So both of our predictions were supported. It is apparently beneficial to invest in these ornaments if you live in a certain type of society. So this is how the media interpreted our findings. Science explains why hipsters grow beards. I'm not sure if that's what we showed. I think what we really tried to explain with this research is that there's a higher degree of ornamentation in larger groups and multi-level societies. And that this reflects selection for amplified signals of individual identity, rank or attractiveness in large and complex social organisations, where conflict arises frequently and individual recognition is limited. So for the remainder of my talk, I want to talk a little bit about metagroup organisation. We remember, we mentioned earlier on what that is. So these are instances where social interactions transcend group boundaries and members of different groups tolerate each other or even cooperate with each other. So let's first go to the heart of Africa, to the Virunga Volcano in Rwanda. This is where I spent two years of my lives. Me and my former PhD student Mel Merville had the privilege of following in the footsteps of Diane Fossey, who first habituated gorillas to the presence of humans and fought relentlessly for their survival. By the way, this is me up here studying the gorillas. So we were interested in the causes and consequences of intergroup conflict in mountain gorillas. The reason I picked mountain gorillas is because there's plenty of gorilla groups in Rwanda that are monitored on a daily basis and they bump into each other quite frequently. And also intergroup encounters show the whole spectrum from peaceful intermingling between two groups, as you can see here, to lethal attacks. And I will never forget that morning when a lone silverback, a solitary male, showed up in our study group and his arrival triggered a massive attack. He was all the resident males in the study group. They started attacking him. They started hitting him and biting him. And the intruder was totally outnumbered by the 45 gorillas in my study group. And he had flesh wounds all over his body and he died a few days later from an infection. So how do we explain this massive variation in what happens when two groups meet? And as it turns out, familiarity is the key to this problem. Familiarity promotes peace. Familiarity had a significant influence on whether an encounter between groups would remain peaceful or escalate. If you look at this graph here, you can see that when two groups met that had never belonged together, agonistic or aggressive encounters were much more common. But when two groups met that used to be a single group prior to a group split, peaceful encounters were more common. So when groups were familiar with each other, they were less likely to attack each other. And as I mentioned early on, an important goal of my research is to understand why humans form lasting affiliative ties with other groups or how people can get this courage from being mean and aggressive to their neighbors. And again, we're using an evolutionary lens to address this question. So what factors could be responsible for groups to associate and cooperate? Well, if you read the anthropologic literature, the usual suspects are cooperative hunting and cooperative breeding. So this is basically alloparenting, helping each other raise kids. So these are cooperative activities that usually include and unite members of lower-level social units, such as families. But for large-scale social integration, we probably have to look elsewhere. So to understand the emergence of social integration or intergroup tolerance, we can look at peace systems. These are groups of neighboring societies that do not make war on each other. Douglas Frye, in his book Beyond War, he made a very strong case for the existence of peace systems in human societies. And he hypothesized that there are a number of factors that are important in promoting peace, especially interdependence, which can take the form of trade and cooperative defence, and interconnections among subgroups, which is usually shown by intermarriage. So let's start with intermarriage. Another important influential anthropologist, Bernard Chape, in his book Primeval Kinship, he argued that intermarriage is crucial for creating links between groups. And he basically argued that lifetime bonds between transferred kin and their natal kin creates links between groups based on consanguineal kinship, which is blood-related kinship, and affinol kinship, which is in-law kinship. So an example of consanguineal kinship would be when a woman transfers to another group and has children there, then her children can develop a relationship with their maternal grandparents living in the woman's natal group. And an example of affinol kinship would be when a transferred woman maintains contact with her natal kin, then her husband can recognize his wife's kin or his in-laws. The second pillar that may support peace systems is active trade of subsistence goods, for example food. For example, when different groups specialize in the production of particular trade goods, which are then exchanged with neighbors, that would be an example of interdependence. And the last determinant of peace systems is defense against hostile third parties. Dick Alexander, another well-known anthropologist, wrote an essay back in the 70s, where he argued that between group competition is a strong selective force for the evolution of superfamilial groupings and complex coalitions. So he essentially said that the need for cooperative defense against external threats can actually foster friendly attitudes to neighboring communities. And a good historical example of this is the Iroqual Confederacy of Native American Tribes. So this is an inter-society alliance for the purpose of mutual defense. So these groups, they stopped all their internal squabbling and unified the groups towards a common goal. Or for example, when strangers are exposed to a common threat such as a terrorist attack, they're more likely to identify themselves as belonging to a uniform social entity. So how did I go about testing the effects of these variables on intergroup peace? I used what we call the standard cross-cultural sample, which is a representative sample of 186 traditional human societies of all geographic regions and cultural clusters. And I predict that that conflict between communities should be lower with increasing degrees of trade, intermarriage, and external warfare. And as it turns out, trade was the only variable that significantly influenced where the groups would remain peaceful or have conflicts. You can see that here when there was no trade in a traditional society, then conflicts between communities, they were endemic. But when trade relationships were well established, then conflict between communities tended to be less common. So the last thing I want to mention is that we also did some field experiments to address the question of whether people are willing to help someone from another group. For example, we did a lost letter experiment here in Perth. We dropped 600 letters in various towns in rural Western Australia. And then we tell it how many letters were picked up by Pastor Spy and put in the mail. The number of letters that were returned was a measure of cooperativeness or altruism. And we varied the location of the receiver of the letter. Letters were addressed to either an in-town resident or someone living in the Perth metropolitan area. Overall, we found that nearly 50% of letters were returned. That's not bad at all. But people were equally likely to help an in-group member and an out-group member. So there was no difference here. The only variable that explained return rates was socioeconomic status of the town where the letter was dropped. So people in towns of higher socioeconomic status, they were more likely to return a letter. And recently, my honor student did a study where he explored if people are more likely to help strangers when they are supporting the same AFL team. So that is when they were the same team apparel. So after football games, we asked fans for a favor such as borrowing their phone. And there was no evidence of in-group favoritism. So people showed no difference in attitudes towards in-group versus out-group members. I guess if we had done this experiment in the UK, let's say with Liverpool and Manchester United, we would probably have gotten a different result. But football is probably a bit less competitive here than soccer in the UK. And the last thing I want to mention is we've also recently started exploring the proximate or mechanistic underpinnings of between-group tolerance. As you all know here in Australia, people call you mate all the time. Mateship is an Australian code of conduct that emphasizes loyalty and friendship. It's a bit like kinship terms such as brother, which function to form strong bonds among in-group members. But we don't know if they play a role in establishing ties without group members. So to explore that possibility, we conducted an experiment. We recorded two sets of speeches by three male speakers. The first set contained the word mate so that we infused that speech with the word mate. The second set didn't contain the word mate. And the three speakers, they had different accents. We had one Australian English accent. We had the British English accent. And we had a Swedish guy with a Swedish guy who spoke English with a Swedish accent. So the listeners were then asked to rank the speakers in terms of trustworthiness. And we found that the listeners regarded speakers with their own accent with an Australian accent as having higher trustworthiness than speakers with a British or a Swedish accent. But using the word mate didn't make a difference. It didn't make the speakers more trustworthy. So there was no evidence that the word mate is used as a kinship term to create bonds both within groups and across groups. So now we've seen that an evolutionary lens can help us understand what it means to live in a complex society and why we sometimes get along with our neighbors. So we are fortunate to have been equipped with the capacity to form tolerant, peaceful and cooperative relationships with people outside our immediate social sphere. So let's use that capacity to make the world a better place. That's great. Thank you so much, Sue, for that wonderful talk and a lovely note to end on as well. One of the questions that we've had that's come through from Elvin is how does group living in multi-level societies affect adult females' behaviours? That's a very good question. So if you live in a large multi-level society, you're obviously confronted with a lot of challenges. For example, there's a lot more individuals around you. So it may be quite cognitively demanding to recognise all the different individuals around you. So that's why we believe those females rely on these ornaments. So they use those ornaments to gauge whether a male is, for example, a good mating partner or not. So this is one difference between living in a multi-level society and living in a single-level society, so to speak. But there's, of course, other challenges, for example. It may also have an influence on their cognitive capacity, on their brain size, because there's a different set of challenges that they're exposed to when they live in a multi-level society compared to when they live in a single-level society. I'm not sure if that's what the question is trying to get at. No, I think absolutely. There's lots of comments and questions just saying great job as well, Cyril, and they really enjoyed it. And Elvin said, yeah, that absolutely answers the question. So Debra's got a question here that says, on the accent and mate experiment, did you look for an interaction between accent and use of the term? So, for example, with an outsider accent, does mate change any perception? Good question. We did actually look for an interaction between those two variables. There was none. So that's why we left that interaction out of the equation and just looked at the effects of accent and using the term mate separately, in the same model, but without looking at the interaction effect. Absolutely. So, please continue to put your questions in the Q&A section. I just had a question, actually, Cyril. The study that you talked about with Australian football, I found to be really interesting, and you hinted at the fact that maybe in a sport that was slightly more and I guess partisan in terms of the attitudes towards different football, towards different groups, do you think that sport and in particular soccer represents a tribal attitude of human beings that we can see analogies of in our primate relatives? Absolutely. I mean, team sports is something that we don't see in non-human primates, but there's a lot of parallels between sports competitions and intergroup conflict in humans and primates, because as you mentioned, there is a high level of conflict during sports competitions. So I think these are related phenomena, so we can use the same sorts of explanations to understand these two phenomena. There's also important cross-cultural differences. Of course, as I mentioned, AFL here is probably less competitive than soccer in the UK, so if we want to get a holistic understanding of sports competitions in human societies, we obviously have to look at different cultures and not just focus on one single culture. No, absolutely. Emma's just said, would you be able to link the research on mateship and trustworthiness? So, when we distribute this video, Emma, that's something we can definitely do, while the stuff that's been published anyway. I'm sure still doesn't want to be sharing his yet to be analysed data. So, I just have another question as well. You know when you're, you know, the example you gave of the primates, you know, who started the really quite, who ended up being killed by the other primates, is there ever a danger of your presence as researchers being detected and leading to changes in behaviour that wouldn't normally be there outside of your presence? Yes. When we worked on the gorillas, we worked on a completely habituated group, so that means that group had learned to tolerate the presence of humans, so they completely ignored us. I mean, we had to announce ourselves every time we entered the study group. We had to make those, you know, gorillas sounds like. So, this helped, you know, to calm everyone down. So, we were essentially announcing that we come in peace. And then the gorillas, they wouldn't even bother looking at us for most of the time. I mean, there were a few youngsters that sometimes tried to play with me, but I had to tell them no way. I'm not allowed to do that. There's risks of disease transmission, et cetera. So, we have to keep a distance. I'm not sure if you got the message, but those gorillas were fully habituated, so their behaviour wasn't affected by our presence. With the snub noses that I showed earlier on, the situation was a bit different because they had never been the subject of any studies. So, we decided to observe them from a distance using a telescope. So, most of the time, they were not even aware that we were observing them. So, we used two different approaches for two different species, depending on the level of habituation. That's great. And a question here from John. Is infanticide or infanticide, sorry to pronounce that, is that only observed in certain primate species and is there a reason for why that's the case? Yep. Good question. Infanticide is actually quite common in non-human primate societies. It's more common in single male groups. So, when a leader male gets replaced by an incoming male, the incoming male, if he's not related to those infants, he's likely to kill them. And the evolutionary reason he does that is because it makes the females start reproducing again. It makes the females start cycling again and then the new leader male can obviously start reproducing with those females and leave offspring. So, that's the evolutionary or reproductive explanation for infanticide in primate societies. That's great. Thank you. And then another question here from Alvin. When you made research about the baboons in Tanzania, I guess what you saw is like what is the main role of female adults in groups except taking care of children and how female adults affect male adults. Is that fair? I'm not sure if I'm following because I didn't do research on baboons in Tanzania. I'm not sure which species this question is related to. So, maybe we can see what would you see the main role of the female adults would be in the different primates that you were talking about. There's a framework that is often used in my field. It's the socioecological framework. And according to that framework, females are more limited by access to food resources because they need food in order to reproduce, whereas males are more limited by access to females. So, that's why males compete over females and females compete over food. Maybe that's the question he was getting at. So, we see a difference in priorities essentially between males and females. So, most female competition is over food, whereas male competition typically tends to be over access to females. And with the gorillas that you're talking about in particular, is there a higher proportion of adult males to adult females? And if so, how is that proportion developed, I guess? Well, with the gorillas in the Virunga Volcanoes, it's interesting that a lot of gorilla groups actually contain additional males. Typically, gorillas are portrayed as living in one male group with one silverback and a harem of females. But that's not the case everywhere in Africa. As I said in Rwanda, there's plenty of multi-male groups. And in a multi-male group, there's usually one dominant silverback and then there's a second in command. And often, there's also peripheral silverbacks that are forced to stay at the edge of the group. They're not allowed to approach the females too closely. Sooner or later, a group like this will probably disintegrate and lower ranking males will try to lure some of those females to join their groups and establish new groups. So, there's some interesting social dynamics going on in that gorilla population. And then one final question here then from Jeremy, who just wants to know, of all the primates that you've studied, which of you found to be the most interesting to observe and why? Oh, that's a good question. Most people would probably expect me to say gorillas because they're so charismatic. But that's not the case. Gorillas are actually often quite boring to watch. They spend a lot of time just eating salad and digesting and making weird sounds while digesting. Whereas the snub noses, there's a lot more going on socially. And that's probably because of the complexity of their society. So, there's a lot of bonding going on within the groups. And as I've shown, there's even cooperative behaviour going on involving members of separate groups. So, we see highly complex social dynamics at multiple levels. Whereas in the gorillas, most of their day-to-day routine is characterized by finding food. Once in a while, when two gorilla groups meet, then we do see some action. But it doesn't happen very often. And social interactions in gorilla groups, they can be very subtle, especially among females. Females usually try to avoid each other. They rarely even groom each other. I've rarely seen a gorilla female groom another gorilla female. Whereas in the snub noses, they spend hours just grooming each other and cementing those social bonds that are really, really important in their complex societies. Well, thank you so much for your talk today, Stuart. I certainly learnt a lot. I don't think I'd ever find it boring looking at gorillas. But then, if I had several thousand hours of doing it, maybe I might change my mind. Thank you very much for joining us today. Stay safe and goodbye. Thank you so much, Sam, for moderating the webinar. Thank you.