There has been a conversation circulating on multiple platforms regarding the supposed implied ages of Peck and Cosmo, one that deeply frustrates me due to the way it empowers a certain group of people to make assumptions about people they don't know. If it was simply presented as someone's headcanon that was popular, I would have no issue with it, but it has been taken by many as a fact that has legitimate support in official sources. As someone who does not see such support as legitimate, I would like to present all the ways that this theory, or headcanon, does not hold up when faced with other evidence and interpretations.
During the first section of this post, I will be referencing the original post that started this conversation, which you can find here: https://www.tumblr.com/bootleggreely/787582689161134081/hihi-hello-i-mentioned-wanting-to-make-a-post. If you have no idea what this discourse is about, I recommend reading it first. I will first offer all of the ways these pieces of evidence can be refuted, and then use them to make some counterarguments in later sections. So, I highly recommend reading the entire post from start to finish, although it is about nine thousand words - sorry!! My sources will be linked in the final section of this post.
Also, before I start, I am writing this informally based on the past experience I have writing essays. So, it will be in a similar format, but without any of the formality. I am doing this for fun in my free time and I do not claim to be a good writer. So yeah. There's also the possibility that I will miss several things, in which case, feel free to let me know in the replies or whatever. Since I have seen no one else offer their opinions, I hope that if nothing else, this will serve to spark more conversation about it. I do not condone any hate sent towards Greeky because of this post - if you decide to send any hateful remarks his way, you are part of the problem. Overall, just try to enjoy and keep an open mind, thank you.
To begin this conversation, I would like to first address how important it is to avoid removing responsibility from Animal Jam as a company and their writers as experienced storytellers, since Greeky begins his post by doing exactly that: "AJ hasn't been the best at being clear about [the characters' ages] and I feel it's important to know these things before you pair characters together." If Animal Jam wanted to make the ages of their characters clearer, they have the means to do so. They could mention something specific to children about their characters, or even mention their actual ages or age ranges. Just so we're all on the same page, the writer for most of Animal Jam Classic's story was Adam Hunter, according to his Linkedin profile, although there is no way of knowing for sure just how much he contributed outside of the game. This is worth noting for later.
The first piece of evidence that Greeky provides is one from 2012 which states that Peck and Cosmo are the youngest Alphas. However, the author, Greeky, goes even further by stating that this piece of evidence "establishes concrete proof that Cosmo and Peck are significantly younger [than] the others." Right away, he is inserting his subjective opinion into the objective point he's trying to make. In the grand scheme of things, we don't have to make this a big deal, and we can say he was just writing quickly and didn't feel like proofreading his work, given that the subject is, to some, trivial. However, given this interpretation, you would assume that means he doesn't care very much about this topic at all, which I will disprove later. Overall, it still hurts the point he is making, because it makes him look disingenuous and biased.
I don't think I need to explain why "the youngest" does not automatically mean "significantly younger." Unfortunately, we cannot say for sure how young the writer intends Cosmo and Peck to be based on this evidence alone, as the term is completely relative. During similar discussions around this topic, other fans have made the point that if their age gap between the others wasn't significant, the writers wouldn't have added this to the description. As much as I would love to say this is a great point, it is an argument that solely relies on a person's individual judgement, and therefore not definitive. If we were to investigate this point further, we would have to look at other evidence to further support it, which I will do later in this post. For now, I think it's safe to say that Peck and Cosmo's age in relation to the others, based on this piece of evidence alone, is subject to personal interpretation.
I would also like to point out a major flaw in this piece of evidence, which is that the source it comes from is often contradicted in later iterations of the canon. The source I am referring to is a series of character descriptions known as the "Alpha Spotlights" that were all first released in 2012. These descriptions make a lot of claims, such as that Peck was not appointed at the same time as the other Alphas, or that Liza stays behind in Jamaa Township to welcome Jammers. The former has proven untrue in the book Call of the Alphas, while the latter was contradicted by a recent Liza quote in the mobile game where she mentions travelling to "distant lands." There are other examples that need a bit more context to disprove, so I won't bother with them, but I think the point I'm trying to make here is pretty clear. We have no way of knowing whether or not these descriptions are still considered canon by the writers, given their multiple inaccuracies in the present day.
Of course, Greeky's overarching argument is that these pieces of evidence should not be looked at individually, but taken together as proof of his larger narrative. There is still an issue with this argument, however. If one of these pieces of evidence can no longer be considered valid, or hold up against different interpretations, can it still be used as evidence? From an analytical perspective, I would say we should consider all possibilities, and that includes those which disprove Greeky's main argument. In the case that a piece of evidence cannot be considered definitive, it should not count as legitimate support for his argument.
Peck & Cosmo's Sense of Humor
The next piece of evidence is also from the Alpha Spotlights, which states the other Alphas don't appreciate Peck and Cosmo's pranks or understand their jokes. According to Greeky, this quote is meant to imply that it is the ages of both sides that lead to this misunderstanding, because both Cosmo and Peck are "significantly younger." In order to disprove this, let's consider a different way that this evidence can be interpreted, as well as where else it is possibly supported.
It is indeed a common stereotype that younger people are more likely to misbehave, cause trouble, and have more of a sense of humor. I'm not going to do a deep dive into this or anything but in my opinion, this stereotype likely derives from the idea that younger people possess more innocence, due to their lack of life experience, and therefore are less capable of taking things seriously. I'm sure that this stereotype is common in several child characters from other media as well, however, this personality trait is not exclusive to children or young people. In fact, it is stated in an earlier description of Graham's that he "likes to play innocent pranks on new animals in Animal Jam." Graham is commonly perceived by fans as an elderly character. Given that this evidence was published earlier, in 2010, I'm sure some could argue that makes it invalid, or that it still doesn't disprove the fact that Peck and Cosmo's humor is unique, meaning that even Graham supposedly does not understand it. To those people, I would say, you have a point. However, it does demonstrate that Animal Jam's writers are capable of writing a character with this personality trait that is not, as Greeky claims, a child.
The idea that the other Alphas do not understand or appreciate Cosmo and Peck's sense of humor is supported by several other official sources. In the first comic book of the series, the two propose racing each other while Greely chastises them for being reckless. Of course, this response is expected from someone described as cold as Greely. Although, in the end, he proposes his own idea that they also find fun, so, um… perhaps this is actually evidence to the contrary. One source that certainly supports the idea, though, comes from the AMA hosted on the French version of the daily explorer in 2016. In this AMA, "Cosmo" describes a time that Peck suggested a prank they both performed on Greely. Funnily enough, in the end, "he" adds, "I don’t know why Peck likes playing tricks on Greely, but he doesn’t seem to mind." So, uh, I guess this also doesn't hold up… Hmm… Okay, how about in Graham's section, where he states, "Alright, fine, maybe I don’t have Peck’s sense of humor, but well, I will like to try." Maybe this supports it? Although I think he would have to understand Peck's sense of humor to also understand he doesn't have it, and it's only evidence for him and no one else, anyways…
Okay, well, before I move on quickly from that disaster, let me add that, in the context of Cosmo and Peck being best friends, as many sources such as the comics imply, it is understandable that others may not understand their sense of humor. Many friend groups have inside jokes or unique styles of humor that others may find unsettling or confusing. So, instead of being an indicator of age, this piece of evidence can simply indicate a difference in social circles or personalities. It is also possible that their pranks are almost always at the cost of others, as the example provided by the French AMA suggests. In that case, it is understandable that those on the other side would find their pranks distasteful, regardless of how well they understand them. I think that does enough to disprove this piece of evidence as solid, so let's continue.
Greeky argues that even if you concede this point- that playing pranks and telling jokes are not unique to children- when paired with the earlier evidence, Cosmo and Peck certainly come across as silly kids. I can understand how they arrived at this conclusion, however, I would continue to argue that this is based on personal interpretation. So, while both pieces of evidence could be used to support the idea that Peck and Cosmo are younger than the other Alphas, it is not definitive enough to argue that the idea is supported in canon.
The third piece of evidence used by the author is a post published in 2016 by Taylor Maw, one of the former concept artists at Wildworks, stating that Cosmo used to be older. According to the author, we are meant to interpret this as further proof that Cosmo is "much younger" than he used to be, and that this disproves the idea that Cosmo is an old man. Once again, the author is stretching the truth by implying this post confirms he was "much older," when that is not at all what it states. Since it's their second time doing this, they look even more disingenuous, as if they are trying to sway people's opinions by using extreme language not backed up by any real proof. I wish I could brush this off, but language and objectivity matters a lot when conducting an analysis. Either the author does not share this opinion, or they are being purposefully manipulative, and both cases should be considered, given that they can indicate the author's unspoken or subconscious intentions and beliefs about this matter.
Back on topic, since we have no idea how old Cosmo supposedly used to be, we cannot even speculate about his current age in comparison. Further along in the author's post, ae states that ae believes Cosmo "got deaged" so that Animal Jam's audience would have "at least one more character for kids to hook onto and relate to." They further elaborate that they believe this intention failed. That statement has a lot of implications, but let's first tackle the "deaged" comment. Funnily enough, Cosmo is not the only character who was recently "deaged." If you compare the more recent art of Graham to his older art, you will notice the potential visible signs of aging on his face have miraculously disappeared. I believe that Greeky is correct about Wildworks wanting their characters to be relatable to kids, but I think this specific piece of evidence only demonstrates that they intend this for all of their characters, not just Cosmo and Peck. I will elaborate on this point more later as well. As for the other comment that Animal Jam failed to make Cosmo more relatable, this is an entirely subjective argument, however, if you've ever met anyone who enjoys Cosmo as a character, that person is evidence to the contrary.
Just Flat Out Used To Describe Young Folk
The fourth piece of evidence comes from the 2017 comic book series about Animal Jam, featuring short biographies of each of the Alphas. This evidence specifically relies on one of Cosmo's personality descriptions, which calls him "youthful." According to the author, this word is "just flat out used to describe young folk," and that combined with other evidence, is a clear indicator that the writers are making a statement about his age. This could just be me, but I have only ever seen this word be used to describe older people. It is usually automatically assumed that younger characters are "youthful" given… the nature of the word. I assume that the author has seen otherwise, but I believe it's important to consider all perspectives, which ae does not do in this instance, once again painting a biased argument.
I would like to draw attention to two things with this piece of evidence. Firstly, it is only said about Cosmo, so this does nothing to further aeir idea about Peck. Secondly, it was published in 2017, which is 5 years after the first two pieces of evidence. This is important because ideas can change over time, and more evidence can be released in between the years as well.
I do not believe I need to disprove this, given that on its own it obviously does not stand up, and it is mostly used by Greeky to support aeir other ideas. If the writers truly wanted to make a statement about his age, wouldn't they just use the word "young" instead?
The next pieces of evidence are admitted by Greeky to be less direct and capable of different interpretations, but I'd like to address them anyway, because they often use them in other discussions to prove their point.
Neurodivergent Representation
The author claims that Peck is a "caricature of an energetic kid," which again, when paired with other evidence, supports that she truly is a child, rather than a "crazy 40 year old woman." I don't think I need to go too into detail about why this is offensive to me and many others. There are many other ways that Peck's behavior can be interpreted, with the most common being the possibility of her having ADHD. When confronted with this possibility, Greeky states that it would be unrealistic to expect Wildworks to intentionally portray a neurodivergent character. They further their point by comparing it to LGBT representation, suggesting that Juno was only able to serve as such because they were "dead out the gate."
My analysis of this is going to be a bit subjective because I am drawing from my experience in other fandoms. First of all, I fully believe that Wildworks and many other companies creating media aimed towards children are capable of, and even incentivized, to portray neurodivergent characters in their stories, for the same reasons that Greeky believes incentivizes them to portray child characters. The example Greeky uses later in the post, the book series Percy Jackson, which is very vocal about its representation, is evidence to support my belief. However, I'm aware this isn't very strong evidence, so I do have a different perspective as well. Oftentimes, there are shows, books, etc that will portray a character that is "neurodiveregent-coded" without ever confirming that they are truly neurodivergent. The first few famous examples that come to mind are The Big Bang Theory, Bones, and House, although I'm sure there are more. I believe it also is not uncommon for writers to accidentally portray characters as exhibiting neurodivergent traits and only realize later. It is also likely that, due to stigma, they may portray them intentionally, but deny it when asked. Many viewers of the shows I mentioned earlier may never notice these neurodivergent traits because, to them, they seem subtle, while to viewers who share those traits, they are glaringly obvious (I know this statement probably doesn't apply to The Big Bang Theory).
I am going to ignore his comment about Juno, because I believe it would be insensitive of me to compare LGBT and neurodivergent representation. While, yes, both groups are stigmatized and often faced with prejudice when represented in media, I believe the history and circumstances are different. Since this is straying a bit too far from the original debate, I'm not going to fully address it, but I would be happy to give my opinions about it in a separate conversation.
At the end of the day, there is no way of knowing for sure what Wildworks intends, which is why I am simply offering a different perspective on the issue. Since this is a subjective matter, what you believe will depend on your own experiences.
I'm running out of subsection title ideas
His next piece of evidence involves a description of Peck from 2012, also from the Alpha Spotlights, where she is compared to a hypothetical friend the reader might have. Greeky believes this is meant to help their child audience further connect with her. He further supports this point by mentioning how Liza was replaced by Peck in the tutorial in 2015 because Peck is supposedly more relatable and players will therefore be more receptive towards her. This is obviously, for the most part, an entirely subjective claim. There are many players that may find Peck as equally unsettling as Liza, who Greeky claims was unpopular at the time. In fact, I happen to remember when people would make fun of Peck's voice and call her annoying. As for the earlier point, that Peck is positioned as a potential friend of the reader, I would argue this is just standard for all of Animal Jam's characters. Most characters in children's media are meant to be relatable to the viewer, otherwise said media would likely be unappealing to their audience. That is simply how marketing works. The implication that only Peck and Cosmo are meant to be relatable to the viewer is simply unrealistic from a business and storytelling perspective, which I will elaborate more on later. In conclusion, I do not believe this is unique to Peck, even if it may be more obvious due to this description of hers specifically.
I am not going to get into the comics because Greeky himself admits they aren't concrete evidence. Before we move onto the next section, though, I want to address some points Greeky has made in other messages as well. This topic has been discussed multiple times in the Jamblr server, so I will be pulling from messages sent during said discussions.
Another point Greeky makes implies that because Peck and/or Cosmo (it wasn't clear which) "exhibit behavior very typical of characters in kids shows," they are actually children. I think this is such a strange thing to use as evidence compared to his other points. There are a lot of main characters in children's media that aren't also children. The most famous example I can think of is My Little Pony - there are abundant amounts of evidence in and out of the show to support that the main characters are adults, although they do also have minor characters that are children. Spongebob's main characters are also all adults. So, while it may seem uncommon, there are some famous examples of it.
He also makes the claim that Wildworks "would rather die than give us any sort of neurodivergent representation." This is a pretty bold statement he loves to keep repeating, but I have yet to see any solid evidence that isn't based on personal biases. Overall, I personally find it distasteful to make these statements without evidence, especially during serious conversations where "weirdo" accusations are being thrown at people.
Now, I would like to quickly go over all of the evidence he has presented before moving on. His largest pieces of evidence are:
In 2012, Peck and Cosmo were officially stated to be the youngest of the Alphas.
The same series of posts describes that the other Alphas do not understand Peck and Cosmo's sense of humor.
In 2016, Taylor Maw, an official former employee of Wildworks, posted old concept art of Cosmo stating that he "[used] to be older."
Cosmo was once described as "youthful" in a series of comic books published in 2017.
Peck has been described in various media as having a hyperactive personality.
Since I have just explained why I think all of these points are not sufficient enough to be definitive proof that Peck and Cosmo are canonically implied to be minors, you would think my argument is done. However, "not sufficient enough" is not what I am trying to achieve. Those who believe in this fanon often make the point that it's "better to be safe than sorry," or in other words, if there is even a little bit of reliable evidence to prove they may be children or have a significant age gap, those aware of said evidence should treat them as if they are. After all, how hard is it to just not pair two characters together?
Given all this evidence to the contrary, or rather, lack of proper evidence to prove their point, I do not believe that Greeky has a valid argument. Is it still necessary to be "safer than sorry," if all this "evidence" points to something else, like Peck having ADHD, or Cosmo just being a prankster? Should we start looking at every character with these traits as a child and forbid them from being shipped with certain characters decided by one person? Although many readers may emphasize the latter point, I mostly take issue with the former, which is that we should view Peck and Cosmo as children because of a few pieces of evidence that don't hold up against other interpretations. I know that this is supposedly not Greeky's main argument - he believes it's fine as long as you aren't shipping them - but it is still a part of his narrative, and should therefore be properly addressed by both sides
If we ignore his claims about Peck and Cosmo being children, and instead shift our focus to his claims that there is a significant age gap between them and the other Alphas, we will need to also address the evidence supporting the idea that the other Alphas are significantly older than them. The only argument that Greeky makes to support this idea is about Peck and Cosmo's sense of humor, but since we've already established that does not work as conclusive evidence, I will provide all of the other ways the Alpha's ages have been presented individually and in relation to the other characters.
First of all, I will only be using more recent evidence, because there is a very old piece of evidence related to this conversation that I will be using to make several points later on. So, based on newer content, Graham is the easiest to attempt to prove, given some of his official art gives him an appearance many fans consider "older." I would argue his most recent art does not share the same features, making this evidence potentially invalid in some cases. Though, I believe that others would argue that this is simply due to a change in art style. So, in an attempt to lend a point to either side, we will have to look at actual story content and character descriptions.
In the adventures, he once refers to the player as "young one." However, the player's age is unknown to us. If we were to assume the player was a child, perhaps below the age of 12, it would not be unrealistic for anyone over the age of 18 to refer to them as "young one." Sir Gilbert and Greely also share this habit, not only in the adventures, but also in the comics. Unfortunately, we cannot use this evidence for either of them either, because it is far too vague and subject to personal interpretation. If a 40 year-old played the adventures, would it make all three of them 60+ years old? Do their ages change depending on who is playing the game?
I expect someone might make the argument that the fact neither Cosmo nor Peck have referred to the player as "young" indicates they are meant to be the same age as the player. I hope no one makes this argument. But I expect it anyway. First of all, they would have to include Liza in this, since she has never done so either. Secondly, this isn't really definitive proof because they could just have different ways of speaking. Honestly… I think this hypothetical argument is really stupid and I don't care enough so we're moving on (I say as I am writing this on my 5th full proofread).
For Greely, there is more evidence to suggest that he is at least no longer a child, thanks to a quote from Fleece on Animal Jam Play Wild, first released in 2023, stating, "Greely and I used to trick each other when we were young, but we're better friends now." Since the word "young" is ambiguous, and we are not given information as to how much time has passed since, it is still up to our personal interpretation how old he is now.
As for Liza, there is one quote of hers in the second book, The Phantoms' Secret, in which she refers to Cosmo as a "young healer." I will admit, it is difficult to read this as anything other than her calling Cosmo "young." However, once again, the word "young" is relative, meaning that without knowing Liza's age, we cannot make assumptions about Cosmo's age, or vice versa. What we can assume is that Liza is likely older than Cosmo.
Although this section is meant to be for the other characters not mentioned by Greeky, there is evidence from Animal Jam Play Wild, similar to Greely's, that could be used to suggest Peck is not a child. In the quote, from July of 2025, Peck says, "Growing up, I always hoped jackalopes were real!" Although this can still be interpreted in different ways, she refers to "growing up" in the past tense, which suggests she is done growing up. Obviously, I used this phrase when I was a teenager, so it is not definitive proof of anything, but it is worth mentioning.
I am not going to attempt to analyze all of the Alphas' designs, because without any actual input from the designers, anything said about them will be based on personal interpretations. Fortunately, we do know some of the inspirations behind all of the Alphas' designs, which are listed in the Insider's Guides as Thundercats, Goonies, The Lion King, The Muppets, The Secret of NIMH, and Star Wars. This is still not solid enough to use as evidence for either side's argument, but it might be useful for your own speculation.
Without proper evidence to conclude any of the other Alphas' ages, we are left basing our speculation off of the earlier quote stating Peck and Cosmo are the youngest. But, without a basis of comparison for that quote, you cannot make the argument that there is a significant-enough gap between them and the other Alphas to warrant "caution," either. So, once again, we have reached the conclusion that their ages are simply based on personal interpretation of other evidence, which there is clearly a significant lack of.
Established Relationships
Going back to the earlier topic, the "rather be safe than sorry" argument is often taken seriously because it relies on the idea that people who ship Peck and Cosmo with other characters are maliciously ignoring all the evidence that points towards them having a significant age gap. And while they would deny these intentions, the way they discuss their idea of these people implies that those who ship these pairings would at least condone abusive relationships. I believe they would have the foundation for a solid argument if, for one, the earlier evidence supporting the idea they were children held up, and two, Peck and Cosmo were ever portrayed as having a familial or unbalanced dynamic with any of the other Alphas. They do not, because they have not. The evidence to support Greeky's argument almost entirely relies on sources that focus on Peck and Cosmo as individuals. Given that this discussion revolves around the hypothetical relationships between Alphas, why are their canon interactions never referenced? If Animal Jam was truly trying to portray two of their characters as younger, would they not make it clear in said interactions? If Greeky and those who agree with him thought that was the case, they would be using those interactions as evidence.
To be fully fair to their perspective, I will acknowledge that Animal Jam sometimes has an issue developing their characters, especially when it comes to their relationships with one another. Many potential relationships are fully ignored in some versions of the canon, leaving us to wonder and speculate what they may be like. However, they are not fully incapable of portraying these relationships in ways that say something about each of their characters, and there is proof of this in every story they write. If Animal Jam wanted to make a statement about the dynamic between two characters, they have had plenty of time and multiple opportunities to do so.
As for the Alphas as a whole, an earlier telling of the events leading up to the main Animal Jam story describes them as "these very different animals" that "soon formed a family." Therefore, in the context of established relationships between characters in canon, the only evidence to support a specifically familial dynamic is one that applies to all of them and addresses them as equals.
As for other potential child-adult dynamics, such as student and teacher, there is one example in the first book where Peck recalls her experience as an art teacher during a conversation with Greely. While this is not well-established, as some would argue Greely would never view her as a teacher, or that this isn't even conclusive evidence that they have this dynamic, I thought it was worth mentioning. If I wanted, I'm sure I could further spin my idea of this relationship, perhaps using evidence from their interactions in the adventures, and proceed to tell off anyone who disagreed with me... But in all seriousness, the idea of a similar relationship dynamic being present between any other two characters is wholly unsupported and pure projection on the part of fans, also known as a headcanon.
If you'll allow me to be a bit cold and analytical here, the Alphas only exist as a means to an end for Animal Jam as a company. Without going too deep into the lore of the game - Animal Jam's characters, worldbuilding, and storyline were one of their main selling points "back in the day." In this way, adding a compelling story with relatable characters simply served as a way for Wildworks to draw in more players. Their strategy of continuing the story throughout the life of the game was a way to keep those players coming back. Even today, this is their goal. This is not to suggest that there is no one working at Animal Jam who genuinely cares or feels attached to these characters. I am sure that at least the writer feels strongly about the story they're telling. However, it is impossible to address every aspect of this debate without acknowledging the full context that the Alphas exist in.
In the context of Greeky's argument, he believes that Peck and Cosmo are being written as younger to make them more appealing to the game's audience. I have already explained all the reasons I do not think this is sufficient enough evidence to indicate that the two are definitively children. However, I am sure that his supporters would tell me that my arguments are not sufficient enough to disprove theirs. When combined with other evidence, this could still be interpreted by some to further indicate they are children, but the same could not be said for the other characters, who have evidence to indicate they are older. First of all, to this, I have to say, what about Liza? Does her potential motherly personality automatically earn her the "old" label? Could she not simply act as a more responsible peer? Either way, I'd much rather just get to the heart of the argument and prove why there is no evidence in the story itself to indicate that Peck and Cosmo would be written as children or have a significant gap in age with the other main characters.
If Animal Jam's intentions were to not only make Peck and Cosmo relatable to their audience, but relatable specifically because they are children, would they not present Peck and Cosmo with issues unique to children? For example, why don't they attend school? Why don't they talk about their parents? Why aren't they shown struggling with the imposed limitations on their world? Sure, Peck breaks from the Alphas from time to time, but when is she ever shown breaking rules exclusive to or similar to ones usually imposed on children? There is a difference between being the only one gutsy enough to do something, versus being fed up with what you are constantly told you can and cannot do. It's not enough to show her as being rebellious, you must demonstrate why she is behaving that way, and in all situations where they have done so, they have never mentioned her being frustrated with the others imposing rules or acting otherwise overbearing. In other words, the Alphas have never treated her as if they were her parents, which is what this piece of evidence would need to classify it as an example of Peck's story relating specifically to children.
So, if there is no evidence in the story, what would be the real point of writing Peck and Cosmo as children? Allow me to offer an analogy that might put this into perspective: if I wanted to write about a teenager struggling to deal with bullies in high school, why would I completely ignore their bullies in the actual story and instead focus only on how they manage to keep scoring high grades? What would be the purpose of including bullies in my idea of their character, if not to convey a message about how it impacts their life or their personality? The answer is there is no purpose, and that would never happen, because both the hypothetical employer of mine and Animal Jam would not afford its employees the resources to spend time on something they thought was meaningless. Additionally, if the writers considered something was important about their characters, they would include it in their story. If the company was censoring them, then, well, that's an entirely separate conversation. Ultimately, if Animal Jam does not recognize something about the character, it is effectively not canon.
Based on this point, you could make an argument that the writers don't see Peck and Cosmo's age as important. If that is truly the case, then why should we care so much? Are we supposed to believe that the writers are writing them with a specific age, while not addressing said age, and that makes it our responsibility to address it for them? Before I answer that question, let me quickly address the first one, because I believe that Animal Jam does see the character's ages as important. If you have been in any fandom space for longer than a week, you might notice that shipping is a major part of fandom culture, and can even be what attracts someone to engage with a particular story. Based on this idea, is it not in Animal Jam's best interest to encourage shipping as much as possible, in the hopes that they will continue to grow their audience? If this is the case, clarifying their ages would only create more discourse, therefore hindering that very goal. In my opinion, this is reason to believe that they are being intentionally vague about their characters, and in the present day, avoiding writing them with any specific age in mind.
While this is all pure speculation, there is an interaction with Animal Jam's social media that might clue us in on the company's intentions (which I was made aware of after writing this section). Another member of the community, Kingchillily, recently (as of November 2025) decided to ask the company on Instagram whether or not the Alphas have a "set age," or if they're "up in the air." Animal Jam's Instagram responded by stating that they "don't have the answer to that here, but maybe we'll figure [it] out at some point in time together!" While this is likely the answer of some confused or uninformed employee, I think it answers the question of whether or not the company is leaving their ages a mystery on purpose.
Regardless of my own speculations, if you don't believe any of this to be true, then why hasn't Animal Jam ever tried to make their ages clearer in the story? I'm sure Greeky and his supporters would make the argument that they are simply "trying and failing." As much as I would love to give them the benefit of the doubt here, I believe this line of argument removes responsibility from the writers and treats them as less competent than they truly are (It also overestimates the amount of evidence they actually have, but, I digress…) To go back to the earlier question, Animal Jam is the one telling the story, and we can only take what they give us. If they fail to deliver something, the consequences fall to them, not the players.
If this is still not enough to persuade you, I would like to make a separate, but related, argument. The Alphas have been presented in a multitude of ways throughout various media, which allows their audience to pick and choose which parts of them they like, and ignore the parts they don't like. This matters to the age debate because it demonstrates that even if, in one version of the canon, they truly were meant to be a certain age, that version of the canon is not supported by other versions. If this is the case, and can therefore be proved, it would raise the question, what makes one version of the canon inherently more reliable or valid than another? If it can be supported, this question would undoubtedly make those in favor of this debate look as if they're simply favoring their own personal interpretation of the various source material.
To begin, I would like to address the multiverse theory, which has canon support in Animal Jam Classic. This theory establishes that the universes of Animal Jam Classic and Animal Jam Play Wild are separate, but exist at the same time. Where Balloosh exists in AJC, Mesoterra exists in AJPW; where the Heartstones are relevant to the storyline of AJC, they are never mentioned in AJPW. Where the Alphas exist in both worlds, they have only ever spoken to a Phantom in AJPW. Both stories feature some of the same characters, but with slight differences, and large discrepancies between worlds and storylines. This theory is important to keep in mind because it has support as of October 2025, meaning that we cannot discard AJC in favor of AJPW, or call either's lore contradictory, because both world's versions of events are valid.
With the age debate in consideration, given that the Alphas are shown by certain posts and in-game content to have different appearances, we cannot say for certain that they will also share the same ages. The timeline of both games is also implied to be different, which further supports this conclusion.
It is also worth mentioning that Sam W. took over Adam Hunter as the senior writer in 2020. This is not to say that their portrayal of the characters is any less valid than Hunter's, but rather to draw your attention to the fact that they are bringing a new perspective to the story and the characters. We have no idea of what exactly goes on behind the scenes, so anything I stated further would be pure speculation, but since part of Greeky's argument relies on speculation about the writers' intentions, I want to provide context that ae has failed to.
The multiverse theory does present an issue for other media, however. If there are at least two versions of the Alphas, do the Alpha Spotlights apply to one or both of them? Which universe do the events of the books or comics take place in? A common argument may be that, because Animal Jam Classic had their storyline established for longer than Play Wild at the time both sources were published, they apply only to the "Classic" Universe. However, that disregards the time that Play Wild spent in development, or the possibility that, for all we know, the idea of a multiverse could have been brought up behind the scenes in 2010 when the game was made public. Some discussions between fans even bring up the possibility that the books or comics could belong to their own universe. Ultimately, we have no way of knowing, so does that not make the existence of these different media potentially contradictory in of themselves?
More Contradictions & Other Interpretations
Next, to further my point, I want to give even more examples of multiple different official sources that don't necessarily line up when compared with one another.
In the AMA held on the French Daily Explorer in 2016, "Cosmo" claims "he" became an Alpha after Mira and Zios "found [him] in Australia and already, among [his] koala friends, [he] found the best eucalyptus and the freshest leaves." He further claims that it is "probably" thanks to that talent of his that he was chosen. This statement contradicts the story in the comics and the book published in 2017, Call of the Alphas, which shows that he was chosen while in Jamaa because of his "special gift for working with plants."
In volume 16 of the Jamaa Journal, published in October of 2010, it is stated that Mira's "feelings of sadness and anger fell to the ground" and "mixed with the elements of Jamaa," creating the Phantoms. However, according to the book released in Animal Jam Play Wild's Chamber of Knowledge in 2024, the Phantoms are "beings made of dark energy" that originate from malevolent emotions that pool and ferment.
All of the Alphas were referred to exclusively as "shamans" up until 2012, according to a blog post by Pumaa. They have not been called shamans since.
A counter to my argument would be that all sources should always be taken as canon, unless something specific in them is contradicted in a more recent source. However, I do not believe this holds up against my larger argument, which is that there is no version of the canon that is inherently "more valid" than the other. If you read a story, and 5 years later the author comes out with a newer rendition of it, does that make any part of the story you read less valid? Should we disregard the feelings and ideas that other versions of the story and its characters could evoke? In my opinion, the answer to this question is no.
The nature of art is that everybody comes away with their own interpretation of it based on their past experiences. With a story as inconsistent and with as many different versions and presentations of it as Animal Jam's, people will be inclined to favor the ones that align with their experiences more. As well, people may find certain stories more meaningful at certain times of their lives, leading them to prefer one "era" of the game and its characters over another. All in all, everyone will take away something different from their experience with this story, and it is my belief that we should embrace this fact.
Fandoms thrive on the circulation of different perspectives and ideas. The reason that this specific topic is so detrimental to that fact is because it is presented in a way that is meant to shame or discourage others from sharing their ideas. Even if Greeky and his supporters claim those are not their intentions, it is ignorant and disingenuous to not acknowledge how others will feel when they see someone claim that there is significant evidence to support two of the main characters are children or have a mysterious yet important age gap with the others. I, myself, can attest to this, as it has made me fearful of sharing my own opinions about the Alphas and their relationships, because I do not want to be labelled or perceived as someone who is incapable of understanding their characters or someone who promotes abusive relationships. You do not need to say something outright to imply it, and that is what Greeky and his supporters imply when they spread this headcanon as fact. If their intentions were truly only to inform, they would present the proof that supports their claims objectively, and acknowledge all of the different interpretations of said proof that makes them subjective. In my opinion, they do not do this, and the biased language Greeky uses in his post, as well as his unfounded claims of authority on the subject, are both evidence to support my opinion. A generous perspective would attribute this to simple carelessness, but it is hard not to see their actions as malicious.
There is one piece of evidence from 2010 that refers to the Alphas, collectively, as "elder animals" (besides Tavie of course) that I am dedicating a separate section to so I can fully address it. Now, while this evidence may seem straightforward, it does not have a straightforward interpretation. Just like young, elder is a relative word when used as an adjective. If, instead of the world elder, they had used "elderly," we could take that as definitive proof that all of the Alphas were at one point meant to be "old," as in, somewhere over 50. Since they didn't use the word elderly, we can only assume that was not their intention. So, in order to attempt to understand their intention, let's analyze what "elder" could refer to in this context.
If we assume that "elder" is meant to be relative to the players, that would make it relative to their mostly child audience. According to Oxford Languages, the word "elder" means "(of one or more out of a group of associated people) of a greater age." A word of importance in this definition is "greater." While this word relies on subjective interpretation, I think we can use it to definitively say that all of the Alphas are at least older than children, meaning at least 18. Additionally, given that they chose not to use the word elderly, we can assume that at least half of them are also probably younger than 50. Together, this gives us a range of 18 to 50 for at least half of the Alphas, and 18+ for the other half, during the year of 2010.
All of this is based on speculation, so it should not be used as definitive evidence, and it also does not disprove Greeky's main argument, which is that there is a significant age gap between some of the Alphas. However, it does give reasonable grounds for us to assume that, in 2010, none of the Alphas were written as children. This is still important evidence because, if we are to assume that everything is canon unless proven otherwise, none of the evidence that Greeky has provided can definitively override this. And, if versions of the canon that are later contradicted are now invalid, that would include most of Greeky's so-called evidence. Either way you look at it, if you believe in the idea that any of the Alphas are children, you are simply picking and choosing what to consider canon.
Greely is 12 years old, trust
Before I conclude my points, please enjoy this image from National Geographic's Magazine which states Greely can not see PG-13 movies. This piece of evidence undeniably supports the idea that he is canonically younger than 13.
First and foremost, I would like to clarify that I take no issue with people who subscribe to the idea that Peck and Cosmo are significantly younger than the other characters. I enjoy seeing all the ways that people can take the characters and stories they love and make them their own. As I stated before, fandom thrives on the circulation of ideas, especially ones that build upon others. It becomes a problem, however, when people insist that their ideas are definitively supported in canon, while they are not. It becomes an even larger problem when this emboldens them to use their platform and their misinformed ideas to suggest things about people who do not agree with them. I will acknowledge that this post may read as a "callout" on those people, but I am writing it from the perspective of wanting to defend my ideas and people who are too afraid to share theirs in the face of these people. If it doubles as a callout, then sure, whatever. I don't care.
All together, the evidence Greeky has provided does not work as definitive proof, and when considered individually, completely falls apart. The idea that people should completely disregard their own interpretations of fictional events, in favor of someone else's, is unfair and discouraging. It is invalid to suggest that people should be cautious about shipping characters that have no confirmed ages based on evidence that has later been contradicted or comes from questionable sources. I am disappointed that this behavior faces little pushback within the fandom as well, although I suspect it is likely due to the amount of power and influence Greeky has.
I would also like to quickly clarify that while Greeky is the only person I've named, he is not the only one guilty of using this argument for malicious purposes. He is simply the "champion," or the face, of the argument on this platform. Since I would like to minimize the amount of conflict that might arise from this post, I am not going to name any others publicly. Once again, this is not a reason to go attack Greeky, so please refrain from doing so… I respect his opinion on the subject, I just wish he would stop weaponizing it.
I am open to more conversation about this, but I will not tolerate people justifying their rhetoric by using past experiences with people who have nothing to do with me and many others. If you are uncomfortable with other people's opinions, that is completely normal and valid, but the responsible thing is to simply scroll past, rather than invent reasons to dislike them and then convince others of those reasons. I cannot stop you from doing this obviously, but just know I will not tolerate it on this blog, so it will only end in me blocking you and your comment being deleted. I am not a proshipper, I do not support proshippers nor welcome them on my blog, and I will never romanticize abusive relationships, fictional or otherwise, nor endorse anyone doing so. If you are here to maliciously imply otherwise, I will kindly ask you to fuck off.
Before I actually end this post, I do have one additional point to make towards those who are guilty of the things I've previously mentioned. Many of these people like to perpetuate the idea that anyone who is offended by their arguments or seeks to dismantle them, are doing so because they are "just mad they can't ship children with adults," and that their emotions are indicative of their defensiveness due to a supposed feeling of guilt over being caught. Or something else along those lines. I fully expect those people to say the same things about me and this post, which is why I'd like to address them ahead of time. Since this is a bit of a personal conversation, I understand if you don't want to bother reading it. You can scroll past this part to get to the sources section.
Firstly, I would love to see how others face implied accusations of condoning abusive relationships without feeling any strong emotions about it. I would find it more odd if someone wasn't at least unsettled by such implications being circulated about them. Secondly, I currently do not ship any of the Alphas based on their canon interactions or characterizations alone. I build off of those things in an alternate universe I've been working on for months, and then occasionally ship my versions of them if I think they have potential as a couple (or more than a couple ^_^) So, no, I do not ship any children with adults, and I have never seen Cosmo nor Peck as children in the canon, so there is no reason I would get "mad" about being informed of these supposedly undeniable pieces of evidence that support the idea. I wrote this because I wanted to develop a deeper understanding of Greeky's argument and properly analyze Animal Jam's characters.
Thirdly, I find this argument manipulative because it implies that the only reason someone may dislike their argument is because they "can't ship children and adults." If I'm allowed to bring up a personal grievance of mine, I hate it when interactions between characters are boiled down to simple tropes, rather than consisting of several complex dynamics that all play an important role in how they interact with each other. I feel as if the kinds of people who fervently support this debate are often guilty of simplifying these relationships into strict tropes like "father and daughter" or "grandpa and grandson." Insisting that such relationships can only be interpreted in one way discredits all the other ways they can be read, which only inhibits the conversations that can be had about them. To make this point more relevant to this discussion, I believe Greeky's argument does the same thing by enforcing the idea that Peck and Cosmo are canonically minors.
Lastly, it is also reasonable that people who relate to Cosmo and Peck because of their personality traits may feel personally offended by the implication that those traits only belong to children. And, before you justify your argument by saying you share those traits too, you should wake up to the fact that it doesn't change the meaning of your words. If you use their personalities as evidence to support a narrative, you cannot simultaneously claim that you don't always agree with that narrative. You either believe their personalities can be evidence or you don't. You stand by your narrative or you don't. If you are going to consistently do the latter, do not be surprised when people call you disingenuous or fail to take your claims seriously.
In conclusion, if after reading this post, you feel the irresistible urge to publicly accuse me of being an irrational, obsessed pro/shipper in a certain server with about 240 people… well, I can't do anything about it, but that won't change the fact that you're wrong. If you would rather have a private discussion, however, my dms are open!
Since I mention the source of every piece of evidence I use to make a point, I have decided to put all of my links at the end for those who want to double check me (although they are not very hard to find on your own…) I will not be including the ones Greeky uses, since you can see them in his post which I linked in the introduction. If his post gets deleted, you are free to dm me on here or on Discord @gigilihoya for screenshots of it.
Adam Hunter + Sam W.'s Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adamdhunter/?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app + https://www.linkedin.com/in/samwgamewriter/?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app
Peck being appointed Alpha in Call of the Alphas (pg 38 + pg 41): https://files.catbox.moe/8329w3.jpg + https://files.catbox.moe/9hen3f.jpg
Liza stating she travels all over Jamaa to welcome Jammers: https://files.catbox.moe/4qa3ge.png
Graham basically being called a prankster: https://web.archive.org/web/20101203033456/http://www.animaljam.com/animal_lore
Greely in the comics: https://files.catbox.moe/pk8qeg.png + https://files.catbox.moe/p286ox.png
The French AMA found by Kingchillily and translated by Wolfmitri: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pOdSIr0iBv-1qJ7Xd5exRGXDY3tsNcjy8ZK8EbaiFFQ/edit?tab=t.n74bizm0fdf6#heading=h.r435bffp73j1
Greeky comparing representation: https://files.catbox.moe/m173r4.png
Peck/Cosmo "exhibit behavior very typical of characters in kids shows" + Wildworks "would rather die than give us any sort of neurodivergent representation": https://files.catbox.moe/h9jrvi.png
Graham calling the player "young": https://files.catbox.moe/ak3coz.png
Greely calling the player "young": https://files.catbox.moe/coe4ob.png
Sir Gilbert calling the player "young": https://files.catbox.moe/7eb5vb.png
Liza calling Cosmo a "young healer," on page 35 of Call of the Alphas, pointed out to me by Kingchillily (also their image): https://files.catbox.moe/6tefig.png
Peck's quote about growing up, also pointed out to me by Kingchillily: https://files.catbox.moe/kh4234.png
Alpha design inspirations: https://files.catbox.moe/iutxpn.jpg
"these very different animals soon formed a family": https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aZihXig3Ga4RcqP2AadnLWy0esHdmB0l/view
Peck recalling her experience as an art teacher during a conversation with Greely, pointed out to me by Kingchillily (page 115 of Call of the Alphas): https://files.catbox.moe/1z4ovn.jpg
Kingchillily's message to Animal Jam's Instagram account: https://files.catbox.moe/cbnklu.jpg
Cosmo being chosen as Alpha in Call of the Alphas (pg 35 + pg 37): https://files.catbox.moe/vz0kgb.jpg + https://files.catbox.moe/qua307.jpg
Volume 16 of the Jamaa Journal, pointed out to me by Kingchillily: https://animaljam.fandom.com/wiki/Jamaa_Journal#Volume_16
Phantoms described by AJPW's Chamber of Knowledge: https://files.catbox.moe/bq87ys.png
Pumaa's blog post: https://animaljamcommunity.blogspot.com/2020/11/10-years-on-animal-jam-pumaas-aj-story.html
"Elder animals": https://web.archive.org/web/20100929023955/http://prod.web.animaljam.com/media/pdfs/press/AnimalJam_FinalBackgrounder_072810.pdf
Oxford Languages website: https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/
Overall, special thanks to Kingchillily for helping me find sources, as well as everyone who encouraged and supported me while writing this! I won't name them because I don't want them to face any backlash, but I was originally not going to post this, so you have others to thank for that.
If you got this far you should know this was all originally written by @gigilihoya
