Number 16 (spider)
A long-term field study of “Number 16,” a female Australian trapdoor spider that lived at least 43 years, prompts reflection on animal longevity, research ethics, and the emotional bonds scientists can form with individual study subjects. Commenters debate whether such an extreme lifespan is typical or exceptional for the species, and note that the spider’s eventual death from a wasp sting leaves open how long it might otherwise have lived. The thread broadens into questions about innate versus learned behavior in animals and humans, the limits of measuring intelligence, and how much of complex behavior may be genetically hard-wired.
Spider longevity and biology
- Many are struck by a spider living 43 years; some argue this may not even be exceptional given sampling bias (we only tracked one of many).
- Others note most spiders have high offspring mortality, so average lifespans are likely short even if maxima are long.
- Discussion of why spiders can outlive most insects: spiders keep molting (no wings), while insects’ adult wings can’t molt, limiting lifespan.
- One view: the spider likely died of old age or post‑molt weakness, given decades of successfully resisting parasitic wasps.
- Someone claims species lifespans could in principle be mathematically predictable; others treat this as opinion, not established fact.
Study design and ethics
- Commenters admire the discipline of not feeding the spider a birthday mealworm to avoid confounding the long‑term study.
- Debate over using a numeric ID (“Number 16”) versus a personal name:
- Pro‑number: clearer for data, avoids ambiguity and “non‑serious” tone.
- Pro‑name: many research animals get names; seriousness and good science are not incompatible with humanizing labels.
- Some argue naming vs numbering is practically irrelevant to the scientific outcome, others say even small deviations from rigor matter.
Innate behavior and intelligence
- Several discuss spiders’ complex, apparently unlearned behaviors (webs, trapdoors) as evidence of rich, hard‑coded instincts.
- This is used to argue humans also have substantial innate cognitive structure, contra strict “blank slate” views; language and social skills are cited.
- Others caution about over‑generalizing from spiders to humans, and note the nature‑versus‑nurture debate is unresolved in detail.
- Examples are given of infant feeding behaviors and “breast crawl” as partially hard‑wired, plus speculation about genetic predispositions to fears, interests, or “criminal behavior,” with concern about eugenic implications.
- Broader discussion touches on how to define and measure “intelligence,” especially in an era where computers excel at tasks once used as proxies for it.
Human reactions and anecdotes
- Readers share emotional reactions to the article’s ending and to Alzheimer’s disease, including a detailed personal story.
- Desert anecdote about accidentally standing over a field of trapdoor spider burrows illustrates how common and cryptic such spiders can be.
- Some wonder whether ambush predators like these experience boredom.
Related media and references
- Multiple recommendations for spider‑themed or related science fiction novels; opinions range from “10/10” to “cool ideas but weak writing.”
- Links shared to a detailed research article on the spider, an Onion parody about lifetime specialization, and other fauna (e.g., a long‑lived tortoise) as lifespan comparisons.