Talk:Pheromone/Archive 1

Archive 1

from the French article

(See fr:Phéromone) I could use some help with the terms in English, please! I'm a chemist, not an expert! Csari 17:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Territorial pheromones

Laid down in the environment, these pheromones mark the boundaries of an organism's territory. In dogs, these hormones are present in the urine, which they deposit on landmarks serving to mark the perimeter of the claimed territory.

Trail pheromones

These pheromones are common in social insects. For example, ants mark their paths with these pheromones, which are non-volatile hydrocarbons.

Alarm pheromones

Volatile substances released by an organism when attacked by a predator, that trigger flight (in aphids) or aggression (in bees) in members of the same species. Pheromones also exist in plants; certain plants emit alarm pheromones when grazed upon, resulting in tanin production in neighboring plants. These tanins make the plants less appetizing for the herbivore, causing it to relocate frequently.

Sex pheromones

In animals, sex pheromones indicate the availability of the female for breeding. Certain butterflies can detect a potential mate from as much as 10km away.

Epideictic pheromones

Recognized in insects, these pheromones are different than territory pheromones. "Females who lay their eggs in these fruits deposit these mysterious substances in the vicinity of their clutch to signal to other females of the same species so that they will clutch elsewhere." H. Fabre (translated from the French)

Aggregation pheromones

Produced by one or the other sex, these pheromones attract individuals of both sexes.

Other pheromones (not yet classified)

This classification, based on the effects on behavior, remains artificial. Pheromones fill many additional functions.

• Nasonov pheromones (worker bees)
• Royal pheromones (bees)
• Calming (appeasement) pheromones (mammals)

question about www.pheromonereport.com

This link was previously posted:

• Academic study of Pheromones in Human Attraction

I have moved it here because I'm unable to validate the source of this article. I can't tell from the domain name or information within the article whether this is a high school science project or a project by a well-known academic.

I used Google's link search and couldn't find anything linking to this article, either, causing me to wonder if it was link-spam of some sort. The domain doesn't LOOK commercial, but having a domain solely for one article, instead of having it hanging off the scientist's schools's .edu domain seems odd. Previous editor Daladum, could you comment?

Thanks! --- Csari 20:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I created this web page, and you are correct it is not a commercial website. The website is quite new, so that's probably why it's not showing up in Google yet. I understand and share your concern to maintain the quality of Wikipedia, but I think it is unfair to call it "link spam", that is not the intention.

I think the link is possibly more valid than some of the others that are included. If the consensus is to omit it, so be it, but I would appreciate if negative references were not made without good foundation. I appreciate the work that all the editors do.

Thanks for the response. Since you created the site, perhaps you could comment on the questions about about the author of the study? -- Csari 00:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's some additional information: http://www.di-dehydroepiandrosterone.info/

Seeing as the email adress at the bottom of the article links to "greg@penis-enlargement-secrets.com", I'm guessing that it is not a rigorous scientific study Ornithoticus 18:10, 16 April 2011 BST

More link spam

A friend of mine went through an interesting hunt today. He got a popup that linked to a "review" of pheromone products. That review was clearly biased, and ultimately recommended a product based on one particular chemical ("Di-Dehydroepiandrosterone", trade name "Pherlure"). The only link in the article that wasn't to the vendor was to an article summary from a University of Chicago report regarding Pherlure. The only page in that domain was that one review... it was the top page, and there's no subordinate links.

The article summary doesn't mention any professors, any journals, and Pherlure isn't mentioned anywhere on the U-Chicago website. Furthermore, the URL to that review is in "archives", but there's no archives link on the summary website's top page. The top page, in fact, is actually nothing more than a purpose-built RSS aggregator for science articles. Other than the RSS feed and the "report summary", there's no other pages on the entire website-- at least, not according to Google's spidering. The only page that Google knows of that links to this faux report summary is the original review.

Now, we found that the Wikipedia Pheromone article links to it. The revision was made 18 January 2006 by an IP that hasn't made any other contribs. The comment was, "Important study added, maybe should also be incorporated into article?".

This appears to be the work of a fairly devious link spammer. A reasonable person performing a cursory examination may not have noticed these discrepancies. It's fairly disheartening to see that it takes this much vigilance to keep Wikipedia clean.

Anyway, I've removed the link, but I'm describing my justification here in full.

-- Piquan 09:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice catch, Piquan! -- Csari 14:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly useful reference

http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501R01_Review.htm

Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Repellant pheromones

I'm trying to cite the addition I made about the repellant pheromones, but the Nature article requires a subscription to the site.

I found these:

• (2005). "'No entry' signal in ant foraging. Nature 438. [1] (PDF file).

• How ants avoid wasted effort: new research

But they don't seem to clearly list the authors. Could someone help me with this? The PDF should do, but I can't find a definite author.

In addition, this [2] mentiones repellant pheromones in bees as well.

We have an article on Allomones, but it is sorely lacking in references as well. --DanielCD 14:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Looks like someone beat me to it. --DanielCD 14:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Template that lists pheromones

It would also be nice to have a template at the end of the article that lists all the different substances that are used as pheromones and have articles written about them, but only if we can't mention them all in the main body. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Journal articles?

I noticed that news releases from the NYTimes, discover.com, and Cornell University are listed under journal articles. I'm not questioning the integrity of these sources, but news and journal articles are two separate things. A journal is a periodical that has a particular academic focus, and the most reliable of these are peer reviewed. Perhaps there is a better title. -- horsedreamer 06:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree; on the other hand, somebody has to eventually do the work (i.e. add real peer-reviewed sources). I trust we're all very good at criticising articles, or we wouldn't be here... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

rvs regarding human pheromones

There's been some edits and reverts quite recently regarding the role of human pheromones. TogetherinParis: Your edits appear to be based largely on the papers of B. Nicholson, who in turn lists you as a citation. Can you elaborate on your role regarding his research? It might help if we had an idea of the relevant background. --Piquan 11:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

TogetherinParis is B. Nicholson. My email is TogetherinParis@gmail.com. You have no right to keep my work as your private property. It would be best to restore my commentary as I wrote it.

I didn't remove your commentary; somebody else did.

Where is it? I want it back, please.

However, I was considering doing so, because it might not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. In particular, in scientific and medical articles, the policy is to only include that which represents peer-reviewed scientific consensus.

My articles in the British Journal of Dermatology and Medical Hypotheses were peer-reviewed. I've worked in the field for 23 years, attended medical school four years. Perhaps you have specific questions that I can answer?

Your articles were published in Medical Hypotheses, which intentionally does not follow the standard peer review process, and you didn't cite anything else which does represent scientific consensus. Furthermore, since you (as Nicholson Science) sell a pheromone-based product, then there could be reason to question the neutrality of your findings. One of Wikipedia's most important rules is to maintain a neutral point of view. Therefore, it might be useful if you could also cite some articles, not written by you (so that the article can demonstrate that this is a point of view held by multiple scientists), published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, which support your theories. Commentary is not what we put in these articles; Wikipedia's policy is to include that which represents scientific consensus. --Piquan 19:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As reseacher in the mammalian pheromone field, i don't think i'm sticking my neck out when i say that the existance of human pheromones (in the sense which Karlson and Butenandt defined them) is highly disputed by the community. The functional evidence for their hypothetical existance is far from convincing and there are none so far characterised. What the pheromone-based product industry call a pheromone and what is scientifically classed as a proven human pheromone are very different things. I support the article as it stands and would insist on peer reviewed sources in reputable journals for any further claims on human pheromones. Rockpocket 06:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The cure for juvenile delinquency is a man's face grease p.o. about 100 mg. Wipe the end of your nose on some chewing gum, give it to a delinquent relative, and observe for yourself. Pheromone receptor cells, microciliary cells or microvilar cells, cover much of the human upper respiratory system, not just the VNO. Check any histology textbook. Karlson and Butenandt's Bombykol is as specific to silk moths as sebaleic acid is specific to human beings. cis-cis 5,8 octadecadienoic acid is unique in all nature. The stereochemical oddities of the 800 or so skin surface lipid are legion, typical of pheromones in other species, peculiar to our species, peculiar to sex, peculiar to age, and peculiar to the individual. They've even been used forensicly. Positron Emission Tomography demonstrates responses peculiar to sex and sexual orientation on exposure to pheromones. To test whether human pheromones exist, try this: Wipe a clean dry piece of chewing gum across your mother's face. Have your boyfriend chew the gum. Now kiss him. Viola! Jealousy!

Thanks for your input, Rockpocket. Since you understand the issue, it may be useful to describe the distinction between the industry term and the scientific term. --Piquan 06:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

From the article: Peter Karlson and Adolf Butenandt [...] proposed the term to describe chemical signals from conspecifics which elicit innate behaviours

Quoting Rockpocket: As reseacher in the mammalian pheromone field, i don't think i'm sticking my neck out when i say that the existance of human pheromones (in the sense which Karlson and Butenandt defined them) is highly disputed by the community.

There are clear examples in references I've contributed on these talk pages and in studies of substances such as vasopressin and oxytocin, one recently in Nature (the journal) (yes, Nature does occasionally publish slightly wacky or outright faulty papers, but the design on that occasion held water). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The key word is innate. There are plenty of semiochemicals that have 'odors' that are detected by the main olfactory epithelium in humans, just as there are in many other species. Anyone who has stood in a hot subway carriage can testify to that. But distinguishing between odors and pheromones is the difficult part. In mice for example, we have a molecular, neuronal and anatomical handle on the differences (genes like TrpC2, vomeronsasal receptors, molecules like the Novotny compounds [3] and, of course, the vomeronasal organ and accessory olfactory bulb themselves) but most of these don't exist in humans or, if they do, we don't have the tools to investigate them experimentally. Thus, to prove a compound in humans is a pheromone (in the classic sense) we would want to identify the compound, show it is excreted in humans, that the compound has a putative human receptor in a sensory organ, that a known downstream cascade through a neural network elicits a neuroendocrime response that influences an innate, non learned behaviour, and that we can demonstrate that behaviour in a controlled environment. Show me a compound that has papers published, in peer reviewed journals, describing the above and i'll accept we have definative proof of a human pheromone. Sure, the MHC work and the McClintock studies hints at certain aspects of the above experiment, but none of them prove that human pheromones exist. Rockpocket 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not rocket science. Jealousy is an innate, non-learned behavior. Send me your address. I'll send your wife some chewing gum with my pheromone on it. Let her chew it, then you kiss her and tell us if you are jealous & suspicious or not. Juvenile Delinquency is an innate, non-learned behavior. Rub some mature male face grease on dry fresh chewing gum, have the delinquent chew it and the delinquency stops. You can run white cell counts in immune suppressed people with and without skin surface lipids p.o. We can check out pheromonal improvement in the autoimmune diseases, too. This is a home remedy. It works great. Try it yourself why don't you? It is completely straightforward. Perhaps Max Planck was right when he suggested that science advances only after the old imbeciles finally succumb.

Please be careful of violating WP:NPA. Thank you. Rockpocket 06:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

edit of Terence McKennna

I just did an edit of the para near the beginning on Terence McKenna, because I was almost certain the wording was wrong. The original wording "between, as opposed to among a single, species" didn't make any sense ("among a single species" in specific doesn't make sense). I'm assuming--although I don't know McKenna's work--that he was arguing for cross-species pheromones, as opposed to pheromones that are both emitted and sensed by individuals of the same species. (The two sentences following the one I changed seem to confirm this reading.)

--69.140.23.118 17:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm not familiar with the material, that would have been my reading, too. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Might be simpler to use the term conspecific instead? Rockpocket 19:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Pheroline

Why does Pheroline® redirect to this article? It's a dubious commercial scent, which may contain an unknown quantity of some unspecifed pheromone (pig pee, if rumours about pheromone 'girl attractant' products are true). Pheroline is not mentioned in the article anyhow. I'm going to try to unlink, but I don't actually know how to do this. Centrepull (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

What part of the body emits pheromones? This article does not say.

One of my friends (now deceased) suffered from extreme morbid obesity -- weighing over 700 lbs. Due to his deformity, he had a huge panniculus hanging past his knees. The skin of his scrotum had stretched to merge with the back of his panniculus -- giving him the appearance of having an enormous scrotum, the size of a basketball, from behind. From the front, it just looked like his stomach was hanging hear the floor. He seemed to attract women like flies to honey. He often found that baffling, given his appearance. I always wondered whether the expanded skin of his scrotum was putting out a lot of extra pheromones. I certainly found myself strongly affected when hear him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.219.209 (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding external links

Hi all, I don't really use Wikipedia (contribute) so before adding in an external link I thought it would be best to get approval of those who have spent their time updating and maintaining this page.

The site is www.pheromonetalk.com, a forum which has a lot of talk on human pheromones and testing of human pheromones etc etc.. It is linked with Androtics, which sells human phoremones, but they are already #8 on google for "pheromone" so I dont see it as an issue. Very insightfull forum in my opinion for any one interested in human pheromones. Hopefully someone is still semi-active here?

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukus001 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

FACT about pheromone on human

I am a man proven clinical case of having a vomeronasal organ full grown. it's a little like having a six sence. But it maybe for the best if almost nobody else possess it...

1. Odor is VERY precise;been blindfold at 20 feet Identify people or animal, coke vs pepsi, multiple article people wear, even if breve alcool cigarette drug a person possess, telling if peole saiyng the true or false at 99%. all that by the smell only.

2. Odor are TOO STRONG: sweat from man make me sick YARK!!! odor like tar and other petroleum volatile stuff make me sick like hell and the other people didn't smell anything

3. DISTURBING odor???: knowing if a woman ovulate, having is "period" , are pregnant , or if the person had or WANT SEX. if is she a young 20 lady it not so bad, but if is she 70 old, i run away like hell...

In conclusion for the vomeronasal organ, this world have too much stinky old people and very few willing young woman! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.244.11 (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The doctor that examined and confirmed you definitively published an article. Call him and ask him for a copy, then post it here. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Proof of pheromones in humans based on dubious stats

Check out http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/14/3/579.pdf GoneXC (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

BO is a chemical signal which causes a reaction, besides we practically ooze chemicals 24/7 so the question of "if humans secrete" chemicals is moot. The question is whether human pheromones can be detected by other humans in ways more complex than "omg s/he stinks get away". 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

power of human pheromones

About the power of human pheromones I found this interesting text:

"(Psychiatric Annals Excerpt Pge.57) [...] Thus, in this prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, human pheromones caused a statistically significant and distinct increase in those romantic behaviors in which a woman plays a major role... These findings suggest an increased sexual attractiveness of the men without an influence on the men's sexual motivation, further supporting the hypothesis of the pheromonal nature of apocrine secretions in humans. Practitioners should use skepticism and discrimination in recommending pheromone products to their sexual therapy patients. Any products claiming that they are an "aphrodisiac" should be avoided because this is a drug claim that is regarded by the Food and Drug Administration as illegal and no such studies have been reported. Many commercial products claiming they contain pheromone ingredients may actually contain the previously discussed boar pheromone and may act as a repellent. To date, the only product tested under double-blind, placebo-controlled conditions with a study published in a peer reviewed journal is Athena Institute's synthesized human male pheromone cosmetic fragrance additive. In this study, discussed above, 74% of the heterosexual men using the pheromone for 6 weeks recorded increased romantic attention from women compared with their own 2-week baseline. Not an aphrodisiac, these products are cosmetics that apparently work to increase romantic attention from others."

In the Athena website you can found the details of the claimed scientific study/ies.

I'ld like to know if we can believe to these study/ies...

i think they are as believable as those "enlarge your penis" adds. Pheromones are like this catchy advertise for selling stuff like colognes for example, through the 80s many products assured its user that since it contained pheromones, it would make them irresistible. (if we create our own pheromones by ourselves, why would we need extra pheromones??... that makes as much sense as saying that extra cromosomes makes us smarter or stronger... wich doesnt, it gives you gigantism and other sorts of deformities.)

why would you need extra pheromones? possibly because you are a girly-man and dont produce enough testosterone, etc. but what do you know? you're not an expert. read some research. pdf link --Wedge 20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The above link athena institute which is quoted above is from a company that sells human phermone body sprays. Travb (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just go to your nearest farmer's co-op, and buy a spray can of Androstadienone. It is used to encourage the mating of swine. Same chemical as the athena stuff, much cheaper! Pustelnik (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15327919 The preceding link is to an article with abstract "...there is no support in data for the claim that the substances increase the attractiveness of the wearers..." that debunks research the Athena Institute uses in their marketing claim: "Effective for 74% in 8 week published scientific study." --Cycle Word, June 2010. I am an expert on this topic, and someone has already posted a link to my award-winning 2001 review article with co-authors from Vienna. see:http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501R01_Review.htm My 2007 journal article and book chapter also won an award, and the author's copy has been reproduced for online availability with indexing at http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/kohl.htm The concept of human pheromones that I first accurately helped to detail in the book: The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality, has since been bastardized by hundreds of marketers. Simply put, human pheromones affect behavior by enhancing the appeal of the wearer. The enhanced appeal is due to the conditioning of an associated hormone response during a lifetime of exposure that begins at birth. The mixture of human pheromones that my colleagues and I have shown increases observed flirtatious behavior and self-reported levels of attraction in women, elicits these affects in a manner similar to what "make-up" does for the appeal of women. If our results are independently replicated, publication will dispel the ridiculous marketing claims of animalistic aphrodisiacal affects on human behavior. Human pheromones can help, but they can't change your personality. Jvkohl (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Fiction section

I've removed the 'pheromones in fiction' section, as it contributed nothing to a scientific understanding of pheromones. There are more than enough articles on wikipedia with Star Trek and Red Dwarf trivia. It has no place in a scientific article. Nomist 11:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this but the whole article is gone. :( Can someone fix this quick.

Science fiction and scientific understanding of pheromones

In his book "Darwin's Radio" (2000, Ballantine Books) and his sequel "Darwin's Children" (2004, Del Rey), science fiction author and novelist Greg Bear successfully predicted that human endogenous retroviruses are involved in primate speciation. His new subspecies of human being communicated with pheromones, as do other species from yeasts to non-human primates. This example of science fiction becoming fact contributes to a scientific understanding of human pheromones via a forward-thinking author's grasp of molecular biology and his willingness to take the next logical step for his readers. Other fictional representations of human pheromones must also have some basis in fact; enough to be included on Wikipedia, if only to encourage forward-thinking by others. Indeed, in his November 2003 presentation before the American Philosophical Society, Greg Bear said: "What we [science fiction writers] write is far from authoritative, or final, but science fiction works best when it stimulates debate."

Moving forward as he spoke about epigenetic influences, he also said that chemical signals between organisms can change genetic expression. This allows the social environment to modify genetic expression in individuals and in their offspring. A decade has passed since Bear’s conceptualization of how pheromones might exert a powerful epigenetic influence on other species and on us. Those who are familiar with current works from molecular biology can now more fully recognize that Greg Bear was at least a decade ahead of his time. To a lesser degree, so were my co-authors and I when we wrote about epigenetic influences and pheromones in 1996. The take home message that’s available through the integration of science fiction and scientific fact is that pheromones may be the most significant epigenetic influence of all. We are beginning to see this more clearly after our species sequenced the human genome and proceeds to learn more about epigenetic facts predicted by science fiction.Jvkohl (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

'Effect' and 'Affect'

Some recent writer wrote this sentence: "They hypothesized that male sweat contains pheromones, which mirror how pheromones effect other mammals." Keep it, it's funny and makes a kind of lecherous sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.215.123 (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Many people seem unaware of the difference between effect and affect with regard to pheromones. For example, correctly stated mammalian pheromones effect hormones that affect behavior. This statement is based the fact that “The interaction between sensory input and hormonal levels appears to be a general rule in endocrine relationships underlying behavior.” Jvkohl (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Definition

The definition seems to leave something out, perhaps? Chemical that triggers a natural behavioral response in another member of the same species: it should probably say 'secreted' to make clear the origin of the chemical. But would a chemical within or on the surface of the animal be considered a pheromone - one that could only be detected on contact with the animal itself? I presume a pheromone has to be detected at some distance from the organism, e.g. an odour released into the air, or a chemical present in urine which can be tasted and perhaps smelled. Richard001 (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

In 1959, pheromones were originally defined as “…substances which are secreted to the outside by an individual and received by a second individual of the same species, in which they release a specific reaction, for example, a definite behavior or a developmental process.” Karlson and Luscher. We now know that pheromones can only release a definite behavior that is organized by a developmental process. The developmental process is hormone-mediated, and pheromones cause changes in the levels of hormones that mediate the developmental process. By causing changes in these hormones, pheromones elicit behavioral affects in species from insects to mammals.Jvkohl (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Martin Lüscher and peromones

The link to the theoretical physicist Martin Lüscher (born in 1950!) is wrong. Besides the fact that the pysicist's research area is quantum chromodynamics, a research area far away from pheromones, he would have been only nine years old when he coined the term "pheromone" in 1959! The link should be removed or an article about the biologist Martin Lüscher should be written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.78.98 (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the term

As this reads currently, it makes no sense: certainly the "defined introduced the term" bit. But I'm not sure what was actually intended...the first sentence already says that two reseachers "introduced" term, the second implies they had introduced it into something else other than English (but what?)

Good point. I've cleaned it up (i think the editor meant they introduced it into the scientific literature) and will add a quote from the paper itself tomorrow, when i can get hold of a copy. Rockpocket 06:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The section "Background" begins with the sentence "The term 'pheromone' was introduced by Peter Karlson and Martin Luscher in 1959," but the link to Martin Luscher identifies a person who was born in 1950, meaning he would have introduced the term pheromone when he was nine. Also, the linked-to Martin Luscher, according to his Wikipedia article, has done work in numerical quantum chromodynamics. His work is not in biology. I suggest that the linked-to Martin Luscher is the wrong person. Thanks, JCaruth, 11 March 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.93.109 (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Link needed

Could someone provide a reference that supports the statement: "many lepidopterans (moths and butterflies) can detect a potential mate from as far away as 10 kilometers (6.25 mi)".

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.102.24 (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Human Pheromones

I have again carried out a rather aggressive edit of this section. Its important we do not imply that there are human pheromones. There are no verified human pheromones yet discovered, and the scientific consensus is clear about that. There are published papers here and there that claim to have identified them, and typically one of the authors then launch an product (available over the internet) that is based on published research!!!! Rockpocket 06:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of the research does seem anecdotal, showing more or a correlation than anything else. I would personally have liked to see some in-depth discussion of the workings of hormones and how exactly it impacts the human brain but I guess currently the information just isn't there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.39.148 (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that human pheromones exist is made obvious by the fact that pheromones exist in all species that sexually reproduce. There is no more need to verify that a particular chemical or mixture of chemicals act as human pheromones, than there is to verify that particular food odors stimulate appetite. In this regard, my colleague Richard L. Doty misrepresents my original concept of pheromones when he indicates it infers “… that a plurality of mammalian behaviors and endocrine responses is uniquely determined in an invariant way by single or small sets of chemical stimuli….” (p. 3) of "The Great Pheromone Myth". Is any response to food odor uniquely determined in an invariant way by single or small sets of chemicals in food? Is any response to any sensory stimulus uniquely determined in an invariant way by anything? Take some time to think, please.

Now, about those published papers by authors who have launched products that are available over the internet. I am one of them. My award-winning 2001 Neuroendocrinology Letters article with colleagues from Vienna has already been cited. Here's information on another published article, which is also a book chapter.

James V. Kohl received the Ira and Harriet Reiss Theory Award for 2007 from the Foundation for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (FSSS). The award is given annually for the best social science article, chapter, or book published in the previous year in which theoretical explanations of human sexual attitudes and behaviors are developed. "The Mind's Eyes: Human Pheromones, Neuroscience, and Male Sexual Preferences" was published in the Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 18(4): 313-369, and concurrently published as a book chapter in the "Handbook of the Evolution of Human Sexuality." In conjunction with the award, Kohl was an invited plenary session speaker at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS) in November, 2007, which was held in Indianapolis, Indiana.

I'm not going to edit the information about pheromones because someone would undoubtedly remove what I had written and claim that my commercial interests invalidated my edit. If no other scientists/researchers come forward, it seems likely that there will be no expert information available on this topic in Wikipedia -- at least not anytime soon. If our results are replicated that show increased flirtatious behavior and self-reported level of attraction in women exposed to our disclosed mixture, perhaps someone else will take up the cause and present the latest findings. Until then, the attitude here on the talk page seems a bit repressive, albeit understandably so. I don't like what the marketers have done to the concept, either. But I have not abandoned the concept, and will continue to accurately portray it via other venues. Jvkohl (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Article?

What does the Sexual Orientation in the Brain article in external links have to do with anything? --99.110.255.113 (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 June 2012

Yes, name misspelled, should be Cutler (NOT Culter) thank you.

Please correct a spelling mistake in the content of this page, by changing Culter to Cutler (the correct name spelling for Winnifred B. Cutler, author) within the content and the citation #26 (see content below)

Further evidence of a role for pheromones in the modulation of sociosexual behavior comes from two double blind, placebo-controlled experiments. The first, by Culter, had 38 male volunteers apply either a male pheromone or control odor and record six different sociosexual behaviors over two weeks.[26] This study found that there is an increase in sexual behavior in the pheromone users compared to the control group.[26] The study by McCoy and Pitino was similar to the Culter study...

26. ^ a b Winnifred B. Culter (1998). "Pheromonal Influences on Sociosexual Behavior in Men". Archives of Sexual Behavior 27 (1): 1-13. DOI:10.1023/A:1018637907321.

Also if possible, please include a third citation and change 'two' to 'three' double-blind, placebo-controlled experiments in first sentence of the above paragraph...

The third study that supported evidence of a role for pheromones in the modulation of sociosexual behavior was published in 2004 in the peer-reviewed journal, Journal of Sex Research (J Sex Res. 2004 Nov;41(4):372-80.) 'Pheromonal Influences on Sociosexual Behavior in Postmenopausal Women' - authors Friebely J, Rako S.

This source can be verified on the journal's website or www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15765277

Thank you very much. Gouldsix (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Gouldsix (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: Am I supposed to change Culter to Cutler or Cutler to Culter?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

A quick Google search indicates that "Cutler" is the correct spelling. See this for example.--ukexpat (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bees have (as spelled in zoology) a Nasanov`s gland-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasanov%27s_gland

Studies needed to go into the article

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11705802 One of the first studies to show that human pheromone (VNO) receptors are psuedogenes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkouros (talk • contribs) 23:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=7630893&dopt=Abstract

There's another one that I'll add later, once I've found the reference again.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the thesis that I have linked to below is the latest and best updated phd thesis on human pheromones. A thesis from a swedish university is also peer reviewed before published. Its free to download and I guess that it will answer at least some of the questions asked on this site if anyone have the time.

http://publications.uu.se/abstract.xsql?lang=en&dbid=5880

edit

I added a sentence and a citation for an example of a species that uses pheromones in mate selection, Colias eurytheme, to the “Sex” section. kzyoung (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

update (occurrence, effects and review) and reference needed

i stumbled across this wiki article more or less by accident, as I am updating the (terrible) fear wiki article, where alarm/fear pheromones were missing. from my pub med searches and reading over the last weeks I find the pheromone article needs updating.

1) pheromones have been found in every living organism studied to date with the probable exception of prions and viruses. I'd insert this sentence but i dont have a single reference for this; my aggregate knowledge after reading 85 articles publ. over the last 40 years. I searched for a review of pheromones across phyla but couldnt come up with one quick, the field is splintered into all the silos... but such a review should be included.

2) the effects affecting (yes, I read prior talk page entries -:)the "recipient" conspecific are so much more known than what's indicated in one of the "background" section sentences, which is why I suggest to strike it. plus the reference to back up the pheromone effects is ill-fitting (Kohl JV, Atzmueller M, Fink B, Grammer K (October 2001). "Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology". Neuro Endocrinol. Lett. 22 (5): 309–21.) as it only deals with human pheromones, the least researched of all.

important wiki article ! --Wuerzele (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Question on human pheremones - again.

OK, so there have been no definitely identified human pheremones. Having said taht, there seems to be an extraordinary fierce campaign going on here to suggest that they do not exist, that they cannot exist ... rather than what seems to me the more logical and obvious answer, which is ... that we simply haven't found them yet. Or have I totally misinterpreted all of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.78.119 (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Androstenone

I've edited the section to reflect the reference content being cited, e.g:

"..at the time of ovulation the women found the scent of
androstenone, the most dominant odour of the male armpit,
to be more pleasant than on the other days of the menstrual
cycle. These results suggest that there is a change in the
emotional evaluation of males triggered by the reaction to
androstenone."

6 K. Grammer et al. / European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive  
Biology xxx (2004) xxx–xxx

This seems to be entirely at odds with the article stating: "It is hypothesized that this (the secretion of Androstenone) may be a way for a male to detect an ovulating female who would be more willing to be involved in sexual interaction". The chemical is postulated as being secreted solely by males. So I have deleted it. Some explanation is needed of why a male secreted pheromone, the effect of which is to attract females, would help other males find ovulating females. Is it being suggested that when a male secretes the pheromone other males flock to him in the expectation that not only will a female turn up but that the female will then find THEM attractive?! A verifiable citation i.e to the page in Grammer et al that describes this research in detail would also be needed. LookingGlass (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Pheromones Research

Further evidence of a role for pheromones in sociosexual behavior comes from three double blind, placebo-controlled experiments. The first from 1998, by Cutler, had 38 male volunteers apply either a "male pheromone" or control odor and record six different sociosexual behaviors over two weeks.[46] This study found an increase in sexual behavior in the pheromone users compared to the control group.[46] The study 2002 by McCoy and Pitino was similar, except that participants were women, not men. Females treated with "female pheromone" reported significant increases in many of the behaviors including "sexual intercourse", "sleeping next to a partner", "formal dates", and "petting/affection/kissing".[47] The researchers believed that pheromones had a positive sexual attractant effect. [47] The third study was performed on 44 postmenopausal women and was published in 2004 by Rako and Friebely in the Journal of Sex Research. The study confirmed the previous results (McCoy & Pitino, 2002) for reproductive-aged women for the two subjective behaviors studied; weekly averages of informal dating and male approaches were not significantly increased for pheromone users. [48] The study found among postmenopausal women, a significantly greater proportion of those using pheromone than those using placebo showed an increase over their own baseline in intimate sociosexual behaviors.[48] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGowAthenaInstituteIntern (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Errors ID'd by Nature, to correct

07:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The results of what exactly Nature suggested should be corrected is out... italicize each bullet point once you make the correction. -- user:zanimum

Reviewer: Olle Anderbrant, Professor of Ecology, Lund University, Sweden.

• One might get the impression that a pheromone is a substance, while it usually consists of several in a blend.

Corrected 22 Dec. 2005

• 2nd paragraph. The fact that the confusion acts on the ability to find a mate, not to lay eggs per se, is missing

Corrected 23 Dec. 2005

Trail Pheromones

07:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This section has a redundancy with ants, and furthermore contradicts itself. It says both that the pheromones laid down are non-volatile, and that they also need to be constantly replaced because they evaporate. Unless the ants are visually observing these pheromones on the ground, they must be volatile, as are most hydrocarbons. Please edit!

Pheros?

Is anyone familiar with Herodotus' story about Pheros? I wondered at the time I was reading it whether the name lent itself to pheromone (Pheros had to wash his eyes in women's urine to cure his blindness).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.13.200 (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2011

Human Pheromones History

The German physician and hygienist Gustav Jäger (1832–1917) was the first to formalize the concept of human pheromones, which he named "anthropines" (from the Greek anthropos, meaning man). He correctly identified them as lipophilic compounds that are associated with skin and follicles that determine the individual signature of human odors.[17]

Early Research

The best-known case involves the synchronization of menstrual cycles among women based on unconscious odor cues (the McClintock effect, named after the primary investigator, Martha McClintock, of the University of Chicago).[18][19] This study exposed a group of women to a whiff of perspiration from other women. It was found that it caused their menstrual cycles to speed up or slow down depending on the time in the month the sweat was collected: before, during, or after ovulation. Therefore, this study proposed that there are two types of pheromone involved: "One, produced prior to ovulation, shortens the ovarian cycle; and the second, produced just at ovulation, lengthens the cycle". However, recent studies and reviews of the McClintock methodology have called into question the validity of her results.[20] This recent study showed how the supposed synchronization could be a result of random chance. However, it is hard to say whether or not pheromones were involved, despite the possibility that it was a random coincidence. A newspaper report[21] cited a paper() that suggested that women with irregular menstrual cycles became regular when exposed to male underarm extracts, and hypothesized that male sweat contains pheromones, which mirror how pheromones affect other mammals.[21]

Olfactory Role

It has been stated () that humans are microsmatic, or poor smellers, and rely exclusively on visual and verbal cues while assessing potential mates. However, when individuals come in closer contact, it is likely that smell also plays a role in sociosexual behaviors. Olfactory signals can induce emotional responses even if the stimulus is not consciously perceived. That is because olfactory receptors send signals to both the neocortex (for conscious processing) and the limbic system (for emotional processing). ()

Vomeronasal Organ

In most mammals the Vomeronasal Organ (VNO), a specialized region of the olfactory system, is responsible for pheromone detection. It is located on both sides of the nasal septum above the hard palate, and is lined with receptor cells that project their axons into the accessory olfactory bulb, which sends its projects into the hypothalamic nuclei. That is how pheromones can potentially sexual and reproductive behaviors and endocrine functions via the HPA axis. It has been thought that humans could not detect and respond pheromones due to the lack of visualization of the accessory olfactory bulb, as well as the fact that in many primates, the VNO is a vestigial structure.

Evidence does suggest that the VNO is a vestigial structure in humans, because of the lack of sensory neurons and nerve fibers in the vomeronasal cavities. Additionally, the genes coding for vomeronasal receptor proteins and ionic channels involved in transduction are nonfunctional and mutated in humans. () Further evidence comes from individuals with Kallmann’s syndrome, which is a result of an underdeveloped olfactory bulb in the embryo and minimal GnRH secretions from the hypothalamus. These individuals have underdeveloped gonads, lack secondary sexual characteristics, and are anosmic. This suggests that there is a link between the development of the olfactory system and the establishment of certain sexual characteristics. This evidence further points to olfaction as being an integral part of human sexual behaviors and characteristics.

In 2006, it was shown that a second mouse receptor sub-class is found in the olfactory epithelium. Called the trace amine-associated receptors (TAAR), some are activated by volatile amines found in mouse urine, including one putative mouse pheromone.[30] Orthologous receptors exist in humans providing, the authors propose, evidence for a mechanism of human pheromone detection.[31]

Role of Androstadienone

Other studies have demonstrated that the smell of androstadienone, a chemical component of male sweat, maintains higher levels of cortisol in females,[22] and that the compound is detected via the olfactory mucosa.[23] The scientists suggest that the ability of this compound to influence the endocrine balance of the opposite sex makes it a human pheromonal chemosignal. In a more recent study, it was shown that this androgen steroid may influence women’s judgement of men’s attractiveness. In two out of three studies, men were rated more attractive by women who had been exposed to androstadienone, suggesting that the steroid influences women’s perception of male attractiveness. () It has also been demonstrated that when exposed to a non-detectable amount of androstadienone, women’s psychophiological arousal and mood were modulated in a positive direction. This experiment was conducted with testers being both male and female, and these effects were only seen when the tester was of the opposite sex, suggesting that social context is important in the mood effects of androstadienone. () Further research has been conducted with the intent of determining the specific psychological processes affected by androstadienone. A series of studies were conducted on 50 men and women after solutions of either androstadienone or a clove-control were placed on the upper lip of participants. All results supported the conclusion that androstadienone guides psychological resources to specifically engage stimuli with emotional significance. ()These results just further solidify the thought that androstadienone is an important pheromonal signal involved in human attraction and relationships.

Pheromones and Sexual Attraction

Using a brain imaging technique, Swedish researchers have shown that homosexual and heterosexual males' brains respond differently to two odors that may be involved in sexual arousal, and that the homosexual men respond in the same way as heterosexual women, though it could not be determined whether this was cause or effect.[citation needed] () The study was expanded to include homosexual women; the results were consistent with previous findings meaning that homosexual women were not as responsive to male-identified odors, while their response to female cues were similar to that of heterosexual males.[27] In another study performed by the same researchers, it was shown that our brains respond differently to two putative pheromones (a testosterone derivative [AND] and an estrogen-like steroid [EST]) compared to common odors, suggesting a link between sexual orientation and hypothalamic processes. () Pheromones and the media

In 2002, a study showed an unnamed synthetic chemical in women's perfume appeared to increase intimate contact with men. The authors hypothesize, but do not demonstrate, that the observed behavioural differences are olfactorily mediated.[24] This and a previous study by the same authors with the still undisclosed "pheromone" preparation has been heavily criticized for having methodological flaws and that upon re-analyzing there was no effect seen.[25][26] Some body spray advertisers claim that their products contain human sexual pheromones that act as an aphrodisiac. In the 1970s, "copulins" were patented as products that release human pheromones, based on research on rhesus monkeys.[32 None of these products have been proven to work in the way that their advertisements claim, however.

Conclusion

There is strong evidence of the existence of human pheromones, but what compounds they are exactly, where the signal is received, and their exact effects have yet to be determined.

Alindeme (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC) This is what the compeleted page regarding the human pheromones section should look like. There is updated information and improved citations and formatting.

References

Not done: Expired old request uncovered by page fix.  Paine  ^u/c 07:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Human axillary steroids: Androstadienone and pain perception

07:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a note on this page about how androstadienone negatively impacts pain perception in women, but the wording is ambiguous and the paper that is cited has no data on the steroid's impact on such perceptions. To clarify, according to this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16546426 , it was found that "the presence of androstadienone increased perceived pain intensity especially in women." The paper suggests that this may result from a heightened attention state.

Human pheromones

07:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Further evidence of a role for pheromones in sociosexual behavior comes from three double blind, placebo-controlled experiments. The first from 1998, by Cutler, had 38 male volunteers apply either a "male pheromone" or control odor and record six different sociosexual behaviors over two weeks.[46] This study found an increase in sexual behavior in the pheromone users compared to the control group.[46] The study 2002 by McCoy and Pitino was similar, except that participants were women, not men. Females treated with "female pheromone" reported significant increases in many of the behaviors including "sexual intercourse", "sleeping next to a partner", "formal dates", and "petting/affection/kissing".[47] The researchers believed that pheromones had a positive sexual attractant effect. [47] The third study was performed on 44 postmenopausal women and was published in 2004 by Rako and Friebely in the Journal of Sex Research. The study confirmed the previous results (McCoy & Pitino, 2002) for reproductive-aged women for the two subjective behaviors studied; weekly averages of informal dating and male approaches were not significantly increased for pheromone users. [48] The study found among postmenopausal women, a significantly greater proportion of those using pheromone than those using placebo showed an increase over their own baseline in intimate sociosexual behaviors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AthenaInstitute (talk • contribs)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2016

Changes to the Human Pheromones section

Further evidence of a role for pheromones in sociosexual behavior comes from three double blind, placebo-controlled experiments. The first from 1998, by Cutler, had 38 male volunteers apply either a "male pheromone" or control odor and record six different sociosexual behaviors over two weeks.[46] This study found an increase in sexual behavior in the pheromone users compared to the control group.[46] The study 2002 by McCoy and Pitino was similar, except that participants were women, not men. Females treated with "female pheromone" reported significant increases in many of the behaviors including "sexual intercourse", "sleeping next to a partner", "formal dates", and "petting/affection/kissing".[47] The researchers believed that pheromones had a positive sexual attractant effect. [47] The third study was performed on 44 postmenopausal women and was published in 2004 by Rako and Friebely in the Journal of Sex Research. The study confirmed the previous results (McCoy & Pitino, 2002) for reproductive-aged women for the two subjective behaviors studied; weekly averages of informal dating and male approaches were not significantly increased for pheromone users. [48] The study found among postmenopausal women, a significantly greater proportion of those using pheromone than those using placebo showed an increase over their own baseline in intimate sociosexual behaviors.[48]

48. 2004 The Journal of Sex Research (Vol 41: 372-380, No.4, November 2004)

SgowAthenaInstitute (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Enacted. If there are any issues, please re-open or undo — Andy W. (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Alleged menstrual cycles synchronization

Section "Uses", Subsection "Axillary", Hyphen "Androstenol": I'm not sure it's relevant to talk about the hypothetical synchronization of menstrual cycles, the linked study doesn't seem to contain the word "Androstenol". Also, the scientific consensus seems to lean toward the nonexistence of this phenomenon. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_synchrony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.1.98 (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pheromone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060211135232/http://animal.discovery.com/news/afp/20051128/ants.html to http://animal.discovery.com/news/afp/20051128/ants.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206162942/http://www.biolreprod.org/cgi/content/full/68/6/2107 to http://www.biolreprod.org/cgi/content/full/68/6/2107

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Dated claim of no demonstration in peer-reviewed studies

Regarding the claim that "Despite these claims, no pheromonal substance has ever been demonstrated to directly influence human behavior in a peer reviewed study.", doing some casual research I ran into this, which seems to directly contradict the article's claim:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3661594/pdf/pone.0062499.pdf

I note this publication is more recent than the citations for the absence of such demonstrations. I don't know much about PLOS One, but Wikipedia itself claims this is a peer-reviewed journal. So it seems to me the article's claim is outdated.

BrandyLova (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Limits

"There are physical limits on the practical size of organisms employing pheromones, because at small sizes pheromone diffuses away from the source organism faster than it can be produced, and a sensible concentration accumulates too slowly to be useful. For this reason, bacteria are too small to use pheromones as sex attractants on an individual basis. However, they do use them to determine the local population density of similar organisms and control behaviors that take more time to execute (e.g. pheromones are used in quorum sensing or to promote natural competence for transformation, i.e. sexual gene transfer). In similar manner, the simple animals rotifers are, it appears, also too small for females to lay down a useful trail, but in the slightly larger copepods the female leaves a trail that the male can follow."

"There are physical limits on the practical size of organisms employing pheromones, because at small sizes pheromone diffuses away from the source organism faster than it can be produced, and a sensible concentration accumulates too slowly to be useful." The rate at which a pheromone diffuses will be a function of the properties of the medium in which it is being released - air being quite different from water or other fluids and different again in gels or the surface of a solid. In the section 'Sex' we read "At the microscopic level, a number of bacterial species (e.g. Bacillus subtilis, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Bacillus cereus) release specific chemicals into the surrounding media to induce the "competent" state in neighboring bacteria", a clear contradiction of the ideas set out under the section "Limits".

"In similar manner, the simple animals rotifers are, it appears, also too small for females to lay down a useful trail, but in the slightly larger copepods the female leaves a trail that the male can follow". This sentence is speculative.

I am removing this "Limits" section pending revision and the citing of reliable sources. Paul venter (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

bias toward human pheromones in the section on receptor evolution

The section on evolution has an outsized emphasis on human pheromone receptors, even though this is a fairly niche topic. Also in the section on Uses, there is excessive discussion of human pheromones. Much of this content does not appear to be related to economic uses of pheromones. I propose that much of this material should be moved to the human pheromones page and the section on actual economic uses of pheromones should be expanded. It seems like the section on avoidance of inbreeding is also strangely placed under 'uses'. I would think this section would include information about human uses of pheromones -- not how they are 'used' by animals. Ethan Bass (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

some stuff to data-mine for inclusion in article

some stuff to data-mine for inclusion in article:

• http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=%23ZeROp6Y%24GA.260%40cpmsnbbsa03
• http://human-nature.com/nibbs/04/wyatt.html

-- 65.49.122.130 00:38, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Chemistry

I find that the article doesn't satisfy my curiosity about the chemical aspect of pheromones. If anybody knows the answers: are there generalizations about the chemical structure of pheromones, or are they so chemically various that there isn't much to say? The few specific examples given in the article are all moderately long-chain mono- or diunsaturated compounds with some simple kind of oxidation at one end of the chain (alcohols, aldehydes, carboxylic acids). But perhaps this is just from small sample size. ACW (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Body odour and sexual attraction - feet contain 600 sweat glands per square cm

"The average foot contains 600 sweat glands per square centimetre, hundreds more than the armpits" as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_odour_and_sexual_attraction

Where and how to integrate this in the article? No more time, thy - SvenAERTS (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)