In a recent paper (Phil. Studies. 165(2): 693-718), Eric Margolis and Stephen Laurence offer a renewed defence of nativism, arguing that it is the most promising framework for the scientific study of the mind. In this paper, I respond to Margolis and Laurence, focusing specifically on one of their positive arguments for nativism; the argument from animals. Using evidence from animal behaviour, comparative psychology and developmental biology, I critique both Margolis and Laurence's claim that non-human animal cognitive development is largely nativist, and their claim that consequently human cognitive development is most likely to be largely nativist too. Ultimately, this paper undermines support for Margolis and Laurence's ambitious general thesis regarding the prospects of the nativist framework, and offers some important broader lessons regarding the role of non-human animal evidence in a science of the human mind.