[aa-jv]

The respect is of other researchers who have to consume the data at a later date. "Number 16" is far more valuable a label than "Brenda", since the former implies the specimen is one of at least 16 other data points - whereas the latter implies that the researcher involved is simply bored of their work and just wants to have fun.

Anyway, only humans use names. Is "Brenda" a human or a spider? Sure, you can answer this now - but can you answer it in another 10 years?

[AlecSchueler]

Humans use names for non human things as well and using a number doesn't imply spider anymore than anything else. Is #16 a spider or a sheep? Did anyone ever confuse Dolly for a human?

It also doesn't tell us that it's one of at least 16 data points. From the article we only know that it was the 16th spider they recorded as being present but we don't know that any of the other 15 made it into the study. The fact that you're reading something we don't know into it from the name #16 actually highlights a failing in this system for me. Surely if it matters to you then you'll be reading the study which will these details explicitly.