Scrutinizing the relative effects and inter-relations of genetic relatedness per se and familiarity (established independently, but maybe used as a proxy, of genetic relatedness) in social recognition systems is, owing to their fundamental evolutionary significance, an important but experimentally challenging task. de Bruijn et al. (2014) report that immature thrips Frankliniella occidentalis living in sibling groups have higher survival chances under predation risk when they are familiar than unfamiliar whereas this is not the case in non-sibling groups. The authors conclude that (1) direct familiarity enhances survival of thrips under predation risk and (2) thrips only familiarize with kin or kinship is needed for generating beneficial effects of familiarity under predation risk. Conclusion (1) is straightforward and clearly supported by the presented experiments; conclusion (2) is invalid. Possible effects of prior association, leading to direct familiarity based recognition (e.g. Blaustein and Porter 1996; Mateo 2004), are commonly constrained by referent number and heterogeneity (label variability) during familiarization (e.g. Reeve 1989; Griffiths and Magurran 1997; Liebert and Starks 2004; Croney and Newberry 2007). Due to cognitive limitations, these constraints principally apply to both social recognition mechanisms based on familiarity via prior association, learning and memorizing distinct individual labels of the referents (direct familiarity), and its extension, generalizing on a shared feature of the referents (indirect familiarity, phenotype matching). Accordingly, the acceptance thresholds of the actors (the discriminating individuals) depend on and vary with the number and variability of referents (the label carrying individuals) encountered during the phase of neural template formation (Reeve 1989; Liebert and Starks 2004). The larger the group size, the higher the number of referents encountered, the less likely the chance of encountering every single possible referent, the more difficult forming and storing neural templates of every individual label, the less precise the individual neural templates formed, the more likely formation of a generalized template, the more liberal the acceptance threshold of the actor upon encountering conspecific individuals to be recognized (i.e., the recipients), the higher the chance of recognition errors. The tight linkage between acceptance thresholds and number and variability of referents/recipients is disregarded in experiment 2 of de Bruijn et al. (2014). In experiment 2 of de Bruijn et al. (2014), sibling and nonsibling group size was the same during the experiment on survival under predation risk, but sibling and non-sibling group size and label heterogeneity differed decisively during the pre-experimental familiarizat ion phase. Preexperimentally, siblings grew up in groups of 10 to 15 individuals, whereas non-siblings grew up in >10 times larger groups. de Bruijn et al. (2014) placed 1 vs. 10 to 15 ovipositing thrips females on the same leaf for 4 days giving rise to larvae used in sibling and non-sibling groups, respectively (at 21 °C, each thrips female deposits two to three eggs per day on cucumber—see Deligeorgidis et al. (2006)). Following is that due to largely differing pre-experimental group sizes, the likelihood of mutual encounter between any pair of individuals, and with that the opportunity to mutually familiarize, was much lower in non-sibling than sibling groups. Additionally, due to the high number and associated variability of founder females of the non-sibling groups, referent label variability was much higher in non-sibling than sibling groups. While de Bruijn et al. (2014) acknowledge the difference in pre-experimental group size of siblings and nonsiblings and separately analyzed survival of familiar vs. Communicated by J. C. Choe