About NatureHQ
A depth-first nature intelligence platform: what humanity actually knows about an animal, plant or natural phenomenon, in plain English, with the evidence underneath it.
NatureHQ explains what scientists have found out about the natural world, and — just as importantly — where the popular version of a finding runs ahead of the evidence. Most of what people encounter about animal intelligence has passed through a press release and a headline before reaching them, and something is usually lost at each step.
The catalogue is deliberately small and deep rather than broad and thin. It currently holds 57 subjects, 306 evidenced claims and 370 studies. Twenty exceptional subjects are worth more than twenty thousand shallow ones, and every subject page publishes its own gaps rather than implying completeness.
- Not peer reviewed. NatureHQ summarises peer-reviewed research. It does not conduct peer review, and nothing here has been reviewed by anyone but its editors.
- Not comprehensive. No subject here covers everything known about it. Each says what it is missing.
- Not veterinary, medical or legal advice. Where guidance touches animal welfare or human safety it names its jurisdiction and points to the authority that should actually be asked.
- Not a news site. New research is attached to the subject it belongs to rather than published as a disposable article.
- Not neutral about overstatement. Turning an uncertain result into a confident sentence is the failure this product exists to correct.
NatureHQ is published by HEKNO. Analytics and any future commercial placements are handled by shared HEKNO platform services rather than by third-party tags embedded in these pages — see privacy.
Editorial decisions are not influenced by commercial considerations. Pages carrying animal-welfare, conservation-crisis or human-safety material are excluded from commercial placements entirely, by a rule in the code rather than by an editor remembering.
Scientific understanding moves. A finding that looked solid in 2002 can be reframed by fieldwork in 2016, and a claim that circulated for decades can turn out to rest on less than everyone assumed. When that happens NatureHQ does not quietly rewrite the earlier record: it keeps both, marks the relationship, and explains what changed.
Every claim carries the date it was last reviewed, its evidence status, and the specific things it does not show. If you think something here is wrong, please tell us.
- How we work — the method behind every subject page
- Evidence standards — what each confidence label means
- Sources and licensing — where the research comes from