---
title: "What the sources say about the Carolina Wolf Spider | AnimalTracks.wiki"
description: "57 claims from the Carolina Wolf Spider profile, each beside the words of the source that backs it."
image: "https://animaltracks.wiki/images/animals/carolina-wolf-spider-1.webp"
canonical: "https://animaltracks.wiki/animals/carolina-wolf-spider/sources/"
---

# What the sources say about the Carolina Wolf Spider (*Hogna carolinensis*)

> 57 claims from the Carolina Wolf Spider profile, each beside the words of the source that backs it. A "..." marks a cut in a quote and [brackets] an insertion.

Profile: [Carolina Wolf Spider](https://animaltracks.wiki/animals/carolina-wolf-spider/)

## Hunsucker et al. (2025). Comparing Nutrient Intake by Wolf Spiders (Hogna carolinensis) Consuming Frogs (Acris blanchardi) and Crickets (Gryllodes sigillatus). Ecology and Evolution.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.71045

| The page says | The source says |
| :--- | :--- |
| A web-free night hunter | Trials began at approximately 9 pm to optimize spider predation behavior, as this species is nocturnal. (note: tagline; 'approximately' refers to the 9 pm start, not to nocturnal) |
| grinds up frogs | Carolina wolf spiders use mastication to feed, grinding their prey into small pieces. (note: tagline; frogs: next claim) |
| grinds up frogs | with multiple species of Lycosidae, including Hogna carolinensis , observed consuming frogs (note: tagline, diet) |
| Frogs among its prey, ground into small pieces | Carolina wolf spiders use mastication to feed, grinding their prey into small pieces. (note: stats.diet) |
| Frogs among its prey, ground into small pieces | with multiple species of Lycosidae, including Hogna carolinensis , observed consuming frogs (note: stats.diet; the crickets were lab food, so they are not named as diet) |
| It is nocturnal, which means active at night | Trials began at approximately 9 pm to optimize spider predation behavior, as this species is nocturnal. (note: 'which means active at night' is the dictionary gloss of nocturnal; the quote's 'approximately' belongs to the trial start time, not the claim) |
| one team collected adults in Oklahoma between 9 pm and midnight | Forty adult female Carolina wolf spiders were collected between 2100 h and 2400 h in Stillwater, Oklahoma (note: 9 pm = 2100 h; midnight = 2400 h; the sample was collected 2100-2400 h) |
| Frogs are on its menu | with multiple species of Lycosidae, including Hogna carolinensis , observed consuming frogs |
| Carolina wolf spiders feed by mastication, grinding their prey into small pieces | Carolina wolf spiders use mastication to feed, grinding their prey into small pieces. |
| a spider that finished a meal discarded a small ball of chewed prey | which was indicated when spiders discarded a small ball of their masticated prey (note: 'finished' = 'stopped feeding': 'Prey remains were only collected once spiders stopped feeding on them, which was indicated when...') |
| Prey remains are mostly exoskeleton, which spiders cannot digest | Prey remains consist mostly of exoskeletons, which are indigestible to spiders (note: 'cannot digest' = 'indigestible'; general statement about prey remains, not frog-specific) |
| Spiders extracted essentially none of the lipids present in frogs and most of the lipids present in crickets | spiders extracted essentially none of the lipids present in frogs and most of the lipids present in crickets |
| Lipids are fats | The weight of the sample (±0.1 mg) was recorded as the lean mass, and the difference in mass between pre- and postextraction was recorded as lipid. (note: the paper's lipid is the fat extracted by chloroform; 'Lipid' is also called fat in standard usage; lipid-extraction wording only) |
| Frogs and crickets held similar masses of them | frogs and crickets had similar masses of available lipids (Frog:10.6 mg, Cricket:14.8 mg) |
| the spiders took over 75% of the fat in crickets | spiders consumed over 11 mg of lipid from crickets, which was over 75% of the available lipid in cricket samples |
| almost none in frogs | Spiders consumed essentially none of the 14 mg of lipid available per frog |
| The study's authors could not say whether the spiders were unable or unwilling to take it | It would be interesting to study this further to determine if spiders were unable or unwilling to consume lipids present in the frog body. |
| spiders took in about three times as much lean tissue | Average lean tissue consumed from frogs was about three-fold greater than that from crickets |
| the part left once fat is removed | The weight of the sample (±0.1 mg) was recorded as the lean mass, and the difference in mass between pre- and postextraction was recorded as lipid. (note: lean mass is what is weighed after the lipid is extracted) |
| Adult females in an Oklahoma study averaged 26.05 mm in length and 1,973.5 mg, just under 2 g | Average weight and length, respectively, were 1973.5 ± 44.5 mg and 26.05 ± 0.2 mm for spiders (note: 1973.5 mg = 1.97 g. The 40 spiders were all adult females collected in Stillwater, Oklahoma ('Forty adult female Carolina wolf spiders were collected'); 'Wet weight (±0.1 mg) and length (±1 mm) were recorded for all spiders'. The paper says 'length', not body length. 'just under 2 g' is 1.97 g.) |
| A 2025 study cites reports of this species eating frogs, and its own spiders fed on Blanchard's cricket frogs in the lab | with multiple species of Lycosidae, including Hogna carolinensis , observed consuming frogs (note: 2025 is the year of the cited reference (Ecology and Evolution, 2025).) |
| A 2025 study cites reports of this species eating frogs, and its own spiders fed on Blanchard's cricket frogs in the lab | Diet trials were conducted using banded crickets and Blanchard's cricket frogs. (note: 2025 is the year of the cited reference (Ecology and Evolution, 2025).) |
| Two grams, one to three years | Average weight and length, respectively, were 1973.5 ± 44.5 mg and 26.05 ± 0.2 mm for spiders (note: heading; about 2 g is 1.97 g (adult females)) |
| They have been seen doing it | with multiple species of Lycosidae, including Hogna carolinensis , observed consuming frogs |
| Night hunter, no web | as this species is nocturnal (note: heading) |
| Ground into small pieces | Carolina wolf spiders use mastication to feed, grinding their prey into small pieces. (note: heading) |
| Fat stays on the plate | spiders extracted essentially none of the lipids present in frogs (note: blockquote lead-in) |
| weightKg: 0.002 | Average weight and length, respectively, were 1973.5 ± 44.5 mg and 26.05 ± 0.2 mm |

## Herzog, Reeves & Wilder (2025). Testing for Differences in Consumer-Based Nutrient Cycling Between Male and Female Wolf Spiders (Hogna carolinensis). Ecology and Evolution.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.72640

| The page says | The source says |
| :--- | :--- |
| females live in burrows until they breed | Females, with an estimated lifespan of 2–3 years, inhabit burrows until reproduction (note: stats.habitat; 'estimated' in the quote belongs to the lifespan, not to the burrows) |
| Females are the heavier sex | Females, with an estimated lifespan of 2–3 years, inhabit burrows until reproduction and are larger in mass (note: 'larger in mass' = heavier) |
| They are estimated to live two to three years and use burrows until they reproduce | Females, with an estimated lifespan of 2–3 years, inhabit burrows until reproduction |
| while a male lasts about a year | males have shorter lifespans (i.e., ~1 year; Punzo 2003 ) |
| A 2025 study estimates two to three years for females and about one year for males, citing earlier work | Females, with an estimated lifespan of 2–3 years, inhabit burrows until reproduction (note: 2025 is the year of the cited reference (Ecology and Evolution, 2025).) |
| A 2025 study estimates two to three years for females and about one year for males, citing earlier work | males have shorter lifespans (i.e., ~1 year; Punzo 2003 ) (note: 2025 is the year of the cited reference (Ecology and Evolution, 2025).) |
| In a 2025 study of wild-caught adults, they were on average 42.3% heavier in wet mass and 37.1% heavier in dry mass than males, with carapaces (the hard top shield of the front body) 8.5% wider | On average, females were 42.3% heavier in wet mass, 37.1% heavier in dry mass, and had carapace widths 8.5% larger than males. (note: 'carapace' gloss is standard anatomy 2025 is the year of the cited reference (Ecology and Evolution, 2025).) |
| Two grams, one to three years | males have shorter lifespans (i.e., ~1 year; Punzo 2003 ) (note: heading: one year for males, two to three for females (previous claims)) |

## Alfaro, Griswold & Miller (2018). Comparative spigot ontogeny across the spider tree of life. PeerJ.

https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4233

| The page says | The source says |
| :--- | :--- |
| A web-free night hunter | H. carolinensis do not form webs. (note: tagline; 'night' is the next claim) |
| This species does not form webs | H. carolinensis do not form webs. |
| Its hunting style is called "sit and pursue" | H. carolinensis , belonging to the diverse Lycosidae family, employs a sit & pursue strategy |
| each stage between molts is an instar | H. carolinensis reached adulthood in twelve (note: Instar = stage between molts, standard definition; the quote anchors the count only) |
| One lab-reared female was followed to adulthood and reached it at her twelfth instar | while after the seventh instar in H. carolinensis , a single female was followed to adulthood (twelfth instar) |
| Night hunter, no web | H. carolinensis do not form webs. (note: heading) |
| It spins no web | H. carolinensis do not form webs. (note: vibe.reason) |
| its hunting style is called sit and pursue | H. carolinensis , belonging to the diverse Lycosidae family, employs a sit & pursue strategy (note: vibe.reason) |

## Punzo & Ludwig (2002). Contact with maternal parent and siblings affects hunting behavior, learning, and central nervous system development in spiderlings of Hogna carolinensis (Araeneae: Lycosidae). Animal Cognition.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-002-0128-9

| The page says | The source says |
| :--- | :--- |
| carries its babies on its back | Spiderlings emerged from their egg sacs and climbed onto the dorsal surface of their mother's abdomen where they remained until their yolk supply was depleted (5 days). (note: tagline; dorsal surface = the top (back) of the abdomen) |
| Carries its spiderlings on its back, and those that stay with her learn mazes better | Results indicated that EC subjects are more efficient at capturing moving prey (crickets) and exhibited improved performance (significantly fewer blind alley errors) in the maze. (note: stats.superpower; EC = spiderlings that stayed in contact with mother and siblings) |
| Carries its spiderlings on its back, and those that stay with her learn mazes better | Spiderlings emerged from their egg sacs and climbed onto the dorsal surface of their mother's abdomen (note: stats.superpower) |
| Spiderlings leave the egg sac and climb onto the top of her abdomen, where they stay until their yolk supply is used up, 5 days | Spiderlings emerged from their egg sacs and climbed onto the dorsal surface of their mother's abdomen where they remained until their yolk supply was depleted (5 days). |
| They disperse on day 6 | They dispersed on day 6 after emergence. |
| At 16 days old, spiderlings kept with their mother and siblings were more efficient at capturing moving crickets than spiderlings raised alone | We compared the ability of 16-day-old EC and IC spiderlings to capture prey in a linear runway and to learn a complex maze (spatial learning). (note: with: 'Results indicated that EC subjects are more efficient at capturing moving prey (crickets)') |
| They also made significantly fewer blind alley errors in a maze | exhibited improved performance (significantly fewer blind alley errors) in the maze |
| Early contact seems to matter | the data suggest that early contact with the maternal parent and siblings is of vital importance to CNS development in lycosid spiderlings |
| Babies on board | climbed onto the dorsal surface of their mother's abdomen (note: heading) |
| A mother carries her young | climbed onto the dorsal surface of their mother's abdomen where they remained until their yolk supply was depleted (5 days) |

## Hogna carolinensis (Walckenaer, 1805), Taxonomic Serial No. 857994. Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS).

https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=857994

| The page says | The source says |
| :--- | :--- |
| Native to the continental US and Mexico | Jurisdiction/Origin: Continental US, Native Mexico, Native (note: stats.habitat and body) |
| Not Evaluated | Hogna carolinensis (Walckenaer, 1805) (note: stats.conservationStatus. The species name only; ITIS states no Red List status. GBIF's copy of the Red List returns no category for Hogna carolinensis (usage key 2146643, checked 2026-10-11) and Crossref has no 10.2305 assessment DOI for the name, so there is no assessment to cite. Precedent llama, alpaca, assassin-bug.) |
| The Carolina wolf spider (Hogna carolinensis) is native to the continental US and Mexico | Jurisdiction/Origin: Continental US, Native Mexico, Native |