Individual recognition in a jumping spider (Phidippus regius)

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The paper sets out to examine the social recognition abilities of a 'solitary' jumping spider species. It demonstrates that based on vision alone spiders can habituate and dishabituate to the presence of conspecifics. The data support the interpretation that these spiders can distinguish between conspecifics on the basis of their appearance.

Strengths:

The study presents two experiments. The second set of data recapitulates the findings of the first experiment with an independent set of spiders, highlighting the strength of the results. The study also uses a highly quantitative approach to measuring relative interest between pairs of spiders based on their distance.

Weaknesses:

The study design is overly complicated, missing key controls, and the data presented in the figures are not clearly connected to the study. The discussion is challenging to understand and appears to make unsupported conclusions.

(1) Study design: The study design is rather complicated and as a result, it is difficult to interpret the results. The spiders are presented with the same individual twice in a row, called a habituation trial. Then a new individual is presented twice in a row. The first of these is a dishabituation trial and the second is another habituation trial (but now habituating to a second individual). This is done with three pairings and then this entire structure is repeated over three sessions. The data appear to show the strong effects of differences between habituation and dishabituation trials in the first session. The decrease in differential behavior between the so-called habituation and dishabituation trials in sessions 2 and 3 is explained as a consequence of the spiders beginning to habituate in general to all of the individuals. The claim that the spiders remember specific individuals is somewhat undercut because all of the 'dishabituation' trials in session 2 are toward spiders they already met for 14 minutes previously but seemingly do not remember in session 2. In session 3 it is ambiguous what is happening because the spiders no longer differentiate between the trial types. This could be due to fatigue or familiarity. A second experiment is done to show that introducing a totally novel individual, recovers a large dishabituation response, suggesting that the lack of differences between 'habituation' and 'dishabituation' trials in session 3 is the result of general habituation to all of the spiders in the session rather than fatigue. As mentioned before, these data do support the claim that spiders differentiate among individuals.

The data from session 1 are easy to interpret. The data from sessions 2 and 3 are harder to understand, but these are the trials in which they meet an individual again after a substantial period of separation. Other studies looking at recognition in ants and wasps (cited by the authors) have done a 4 trial design in which focal animal A meets B in the first trial, then meets C in the second trial, meets B again in the third trial, and then meets D in the last trial. In that scenario trials 1, 2, and 4 are between unfamiliar individuals and trial 3 is between potentially familiar individuals. In both the ants and wasps, high aggression is seen in species with and without recognition on trial 1, with low aggression specifically for trials with familiar individuals in species with recognition. Across different tests, species or populations that lack recognition have shown a general reduction in aggression towards all individuals that become progressively less aggressive over time (reminiscent of the session 2 and 3 data) while others have maintained modest levels of aggression across all individuals. The 4 session design used in those other studies provides an unambiguous interpretation of the data while controlling for 'fatigue'. That all trials in sessions 2 and 3 are always with familiar individuals makes it challenging to understand how much the spiders are habituating to each other versus having some kind of associative learning of individual identity and behavior.

The data presentation is also very complicated. How is it the case that a negative proportion of time is spent? The methods reveal that this metric is derived by comparing the time individuals spent in each region relative to the previous time they saw that individual. At the very least, data showing the distribution of distances from the wall would be much easier to interpret for the reader.

(2) "Long-term social memory": It is not entirely clear what is meant by the authors when they say 'long-term social memory', though typically long-term memory refers to a form of a memory that requires protein synthesis. While the precise timing of memory formation varies across species and contexts, a general rule is that long-term memory should last for > 24 hours (e.g., Dreier et al 2007 Biol Letters). The longest time that spiders are apart in this trial setup is something like an hour. There is no basis to claim that spiders have long-term social memory as they are never asked to remember anyone after a long time apart. The odd phrasing of the 'long-term dishabutation' trial makes it seem that it is testing a long-term memory, but it is not. The spiders have never met. The fact that they are very habituated to one set of stimuli and then respond to a new stimulus is not evidence of long-term memory. To clearly test memory (which is the part really lacking from the design), the authors would need to show that spiders - upon the first instance of re-encountering a previously encountered individual are already 'habituated' to them but not to some other individuals. The current data suggest this may be the case, but it is just very hard to interpret given the design does not directly test the memory of individuals in a clear and unambiguous manner.

(3) Lack of a functional explanation and the emphasis on 'asociality': It is entirely plausible that recognition is a pleitropic byproduct of the overall visual cognition abilities in the spiders. However, the discussion that discounts territoriality as a potential explanation is not well laid out. First, many species that are 'asocial' nevertheless defend territories. It is perhaps best to say such species are not group living, but they have social lives because they encounter conspecifics and need to interact with them. Indeed, there are many examples of solitary living species that show the dear enemy effect, a form of individual recognition, towards familiar territorial neighbors. The authors in this case note that territorial competition is mediated by the size or color of the chelicerae (seemingly a trait that could be used to distinguish among individuals). Apparently, because previous work has suggested that territorial disputes can be mediated by a trait in the absence of familiarity has led them to discount the possibility that keeping track of the local neighbors in a potentially cannibalistic species could be a sufficient functional reason. In any event, the current evidence presented certainly does not warrant discounting that hypothesis.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors investigated whether a salticid spider, Phidippus regius, recognizes other individuals of the same species. The authors placed each spider inside a container from which it could see another spider for 7 minutes, before having its view of the other spider occluded by an opaque barrier for 3 minutes. The spider was then either presented with the same individual again (habituation trial) or a different individual (dishabituation trial). The authors recorded the distance between the two spiders during each trial. In habituation trials, the spiders were predicted to spend more time further away from each other and, in dishabituation trials, the spiders were predicted to spend more time closer to each other. The results followed these predictions, and the authors then considered whether the spiders in habituation trials were generally fatigued instead of being habituated to the appearance of the other spider, which may have explained why they spent less time near the other individual. The authors presented the spiders with a different (novel) individual after a longer period of time (which they considered to be a long-term dishabituation trial), and found that the spiders switched to spending more time closer to the other individual again during this trial. This suggested that the spiders had recognized and had habituated to the individual that they had seen before and that they became dishabituated when they encountered a different individual.

Strengths:

It is interesting to consider individual recognition by Phidippus regius. Other work on individual recognition by an invertebrate has been, for instance, known for a species of social wasp, but Phidippus regius is a different animal. Importantly and more specifically, P. regius is a salticid spider, and these spiders are known to have exceptional eyesight for animals of their size, potentially making them especially suitable for studies on individual recognition. In the current study, the results from experiments were consistent with the authors' predictions, suggesting that the spiders were recognizing each other by being habituated to individuals they had encountered before and by being dishabituated to individuals they had not encountered before. This is a good start in considering individual recognition by this species.

Weaknesses:

The experiments in this manuscript (habituation/dishabituation trials) are a good start for considering whether individuals of a salticid species recognize each other. I am left wondering, however, what features the spiders were specifically paying attention to when recognizing each other. The authors cited Sheehan and Tibbetts (2010) who stated that "Individual recognition requires individuals to uniquely identify their social partners based on phenotypic variation." Also, recognition was considered in a paper on another salticid by Tedore and Johnsen (2013).

Tedore, C., & Johnsen, S. (2013). Pheromones exert top-down effects on visual recognition in the jumping spider Lyssomanes viridis. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 216, 1744-1756. doi: 10.1242/jeb.071118

In this elegant study, the authors presented spiders with manipulated images to find out what features matter to these spiders when recognizing individuals.

Part of the problem with using two living individuals in experiments is that the behavior of one individual can influence the behavior of the other, and this can bias the results. However, this issue can be readily avoided because salticids are well known, for example, to be highly responsive to lures (e.g. dead prey glued in lifelike posture onto cork disks) and to computer animation. These methods have already been successful and helpful for standardizing the different stimuli presented during many different experiments for many different salticid spiders, and they would be helpful for better understanding how Phidippus regius might recognize another individual on the basis of phenotypic variation. There are all sorts of ways in which a salticid might recognize another individual. Differences in face or body structure, or body size, or all of these, might have an important role in recognition, but we won't know what these are using the current methods alone. Also, I didn't see any details about whether body size was standardized in the current manuscript.

For another perspective, my thoughts turn to a paper by Cross et al.

Cross, F. R., Jackson, R. R., & Taylor, L. A. (2020). Influence of seeing a red face during the male-male encounters of mosquito-specialist spiders. Learning & Behavior, 48, 104-112. doi: 10.3758/s13420-020-00411-y

These authors found that males of Evarcha culicivora, another salticid species that is known to have a red face, become less responsive to their own mirror images after having their faces painted with black eyeliner than if their faces remained red. In all instances, the spiders only saw their own mirror images and never another spider, and these results cannot be interpreted on the basis of habituation/dishabituation because the spiders were not responding differently when they simply saw their mirror image again. Instead, it was specifically the change to the spider's face which resulted in a change of behavior. The findings from this paper and from Tedore and Johnsen can help give us additional perspectives that the authors might like to consider. On the whole, I would like the authors to further consider the features that P. regius might use to discern and recognize another individual.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Jumping spiders (family Salticidae) have extraordinarily good eyesight, but little is known about how sensitive these small animals might be to the identity of other individuals that they see. Here, experiments were carried out using Phidippus regius, a salticid spider from North America. There were three steps in the experiments; first, a spider could see another spider; then its view of the other spider was blocked; and then either the same or a different individual spider came into view. Whether it was the same or a different individual that came into view in the third step had a significant effect on how close together or far apart the spiders positioned themselves. It has been demonstrated before that salticids can discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar individuals while relying on chemical cues, but this new research on P. regius provides the first experimental evidence that a spider can discriminate by sight between familiar and unfamiliar individuals.

Clark RJ, Jackson RR (1995) Araneophagic jumping spiders discriminate between the draglines of familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics. Ethology, Ecology and Evolution 7:185-190

Strengths:

This work is a useful step toward a fuller understanding of the perceptual and cognitive capacities of spiders and other animals with small nervous systems. By providing experimental evidence for a conclusion that a spider can, by sight, discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar individuals, this research will be an important milestone. We can anticipate a substantial influence on future research.

Weaknesses:

(1) The conclusions should be stated more carefully.

(2) It is not clearly the case that the experimental methods are based on 'habituation (learning to ignore; learning not to respond). Saying 'habituation' seems to imply that certain distances are instances of responding and other distances are instances of not responding but, as a reasonable alternative, we might call distance in all instances a response. However, whether all distances are responses or not is a distracting issue because being based on habituation is not a necessity.

(3) Besides data related to distances, other data might have been useful. For example, salticids are especially well known for the way they communicate using distinctive visual displays and, unlike distance, displaying is a discrete, unambiguous response.

(4) Methods more aligned with salticids having extraordinarily good eyesight would be useful. For example, with salticids, standardising and manipulating stimuli in experiments can be achieved by using mounts, video playback, and computer-generated animation.

(5) An asocial-versus-social distinction is too imprecise, and it may have been emphasised too much. With P. regius, irrespective of whether we use the label asocial or social, the important question pertains to the frequency of encounters between the same individuals and the consequences of these encounters.

(6) Hypotheses related to not-so-strictly adaptive factors are discussed and these hypotheses are interesting, but these considerations are not necessarily incompatible with more strictly adaptive influences being relevant as well.