Skip to content
NatureHQ

Claim check

Do animals teach their young?

Mostly supportedThe core is right; the usual phrasing overstates part of it.

A few species genuinely do, by a definition that requires the teacher to change its behaviour for the learner at a cost to itself. Meerkats grade the scorpions they hand pups. So do tandem-running ants — which should give anyone pause about what the word is capturing.

The claim as it circulates

“Animals teach their offspring how to hunt and survive, the way people teach children.”

Where you may have met it: Google’s own search suggestions for "do animals teach" and "can animals teach each other"; Wildlife documentary narration of any adult animal near a juvenile; Popular accounts of animal intelligence, where teaching is assumed rather than tested

Taking it apart

What was claimed
That animals teach their young, in a sense comparable to human instruction.
What was actually observed
Adult meerkats give the youngest pups dead scorpions, older pups scorpions with the sting removed, and eventually live prey. Playing the call of an older pup to a group with only young pups makes adults deliver more live prey, and the reverse manipulation has the reverse effect. In ants, a leader guiding another to a nest site is paced by the follower’s antennal contact, takes about four times longer than travelling alone, and the follower afterwards finds the site far faster.
What the evidence supports
That both species satisfy the functional definition of teaching: behaviour modified in the presence of a naive individual, at a cost to the actor, which accelerates the learner’s acquisition of a skill. The meerkat playback is what makes it teaching rather than provisioning, because it shows the adults responding to a signal from the learner rather than to the learner’s identity.
What it does not support
Anything about intention or understanding. The functional definition is deliberately silent on mental states, which is precisely why an ant can meet it. Most animal social learning involves no teaching at all — the learner watches and the demonstrator does nothing differently.

The interesting thing about this question is that answering it properly requires deciding what teaching is, and the definition biologists settled on has a consequence most people find uncomfortable.

The definition has three parts and no fourth. The teacher must modify its behaviour in the presence of a naive individual; that modification must cost the teacher something; and the learner must acquire the skill faster as a result. Nothing about knowing that the other does not know. That omission was deliberate — mental states are not measurable in a meerkat, and a definition that required them could never be applied.

Meerkats clear it cleanly. A pup cannot handle a live scorpion, and adults grade what they hand over as the pup develops. That alone might just mean adults recognise pup age, which is why the playback matters: broadcast the call of an older pup to a group that only has young ones and the adults start bringing live prey. They are tracking a signal from the learner.

Then the ants, which is where the definition earns its scepticism. In tandem running, a leader guides one follower to a new nest site; the leader slows when the follower falls behind and speeds up when contact resumes, so the follower is setting the pace. The leader pays about a fourfold time cost, and the follower learns the route far faster than an ant left to find it alone. All three conditions, in an insect. Either teaching does not require much of a brain, or the word is capturing less than it sounds like — and both possibilities are worth sitting with rather than resolving.

The claims underneath

Each one carries its own evidence, scope and caveats. Expand any of them to reach the studies.

A few animals genuinely teach — they change what they do for a learner, at a cost to themselves, and the learner acquires a skill faster. Ants are among them.

Well supported

Good evidence backs this, though some details remain open.

Teaching, defined functionally as behaviour modified in the presence of a naive individual at a cost to the actor, which accelerates the naive individual’s learning, is documented in meerkats and in tandem-running ants. The definition makes no requirement about the teacher’s mental states.

Who this applies to
A small number of species meet the functional criteria. Most social learning in animals involves no teaching at all.Do not extend this beyond the taxa listed — the popular version over-reaches.
Studied in
Animalia
Why we rate it this way, and what the caveats are
Well supportedHigh confidence

Both key cases include a manipulation rather than observation alone: playback of pup calls in meerkats, and measurement of leader speed against follower contact in ants. Both show the demonstrator adjusting to the learner.

How far it can be extended

Only a handful of species have been tested against all three criteria, and most social learning proceeds without any modification of the demonstrator’s behaviour.

Caveats

  • The functional definition deliberately excludes intention. An ant meeting it does not mean an ant intends to instruct.
  • That definition is contested precisely because it admits cases many people would not call teaching.
  • Most animal social learning — copying, being drawn to where others are feeding — involves no teaching whatever.

Still unanswered

  • Whether any non-human teaches with an understanding that the other does not know something.
  • Whether the functional definition should be tightened, and what would be lost if it were.

Last reviewed 2026-08-31

The evidence (2 studies)

  • Supports · primary

    Teaching in Wild Meerkats

    Thornton and McAuliffe, 2006 · Science

    Adults graded live, disabled and dead prey to pup age, and changed what they delivered when played the call of an older or younger pup.

  • Supports · primary

    Teaching in tandem-running ants

    Franks and Richardson, 2006 · Nature

    The leader’s pace is controlled by the follower’s antennal contact, the leader pays a fourfold time cost, and the follower subsequently finds the destination far faster.

Behaviours can spread through a wild population by copying and persist as local traditions — and this has been produced deliberately in an experiment, not only inferred.

Established

Specialists would state this without hedging. Multiple independent lines of evidence agree.

Behavioural variants transmitted socially and maintained within groups are documented across chimpanzees, cetaceans and birds. In great tits, arbitrary solutions seeded into wild sub-populations spread along social networks, became the local majority behaviour, and persisted across years and population turnover, with individuals abandoning alternative solutions in favour of the local norm.

Who this applies to
Demonstrated in a small number of well-studied species. The experimental demonstration is in one bird species.
Studied in
Animalia
Why we rate it this way, and what the caveats are
EstablishedHigh confidence

Three independent lines: comparison across chimpanzee field sites, network analysis of a spreading whale behaviour over 27 years, and a seeded field experiment in wild birds. The experiment is what lifts this from inference to demonstration.

How far it can be extended

The mechanisms — social learning and a bias towards the local majority — are widespread, but the number of species in which traditions have actually been documented is small.

Caveats

  • Biologists use "culture" to mean socially transmitted behavioural variation. It carries no implication of symbolism, meaning or accumulated complexity.
  • The chimpanzee case is an argument by elimination, and an unrecognised ecological difference would weaken any individual example.

Still unanswered

  • Whether any animal tradition accumulates complexity across generations the way human technologies do.
  • How much of the apparent rarity of animal culture is real and how much reflects how few species have decades of individual records.

Last reviewed 2026-08-31

The evidence (3 studies)

Go deeper

Social learning

Teaching has a three-part definition that says nothing about intending to teach. An ant meets all three parts.

Related things people ask

Last reviewed 2026-08-31