Talk:Pheromone/Archive 1

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)^[1]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

• Allaby, Michael. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Zoology. 305. Oxford University Press. New York. 1992.
• Greenfield, Michael D. Signalers and receivers : mechanisms and evolution of arthropod communication. 107. Oxford University Press. 2002. Online. June 9, 2008. Google books. ISBN 0-19-513452-4
• Meyer, John R. Social Bees. Department of Entomology NC State University. January 31, 2006. Online. June 9, 2008.

16:25, 17 march 2013 (UTC) Mariina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.33.48 (talk)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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!

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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(^[1]) 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 (^[2]) 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). (^[3])

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. (^[4]) 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. (^[5]) 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. (^[6]) 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. (^[7])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] (^[8]) 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. (^[9]) 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.

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

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.

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.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AthenaInstitute (talk • contribs)

This edit request to Pheromone has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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] ^[1]

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

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

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

There is to my opinion a real question about pheromones. Years ago I did read in the Eranos Jahrbuch. There was psychoanalytica who did describe certain behavior of a patient connected with smell. Reading that I thought I had to conclude that it was pure virtual. The reality she attributed to here patient was her own reality somehow connected to her patient but obviously (?) not his reality. Perhaps something like this applies to the pheromones. Cannot it be that our fantasy which posses us so strong falsifies our observation? Particular in the case of the sense organ smell wish appears to be deluding in many cases.

?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.129.136.48 (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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:

• 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)

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)

"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)

Look, I realize completely how this is going to read. It's just as difficult to write ... The evidence that there is "something" that causes the often negative inter-female behaviour in humans, whilst of course totally anecdotal, is absolutely overwhelming. Is there any evidence that this is caused by pheromones? A good place to start would appear to be in other animals, which interestingly, in non-human cases, is almost exclusively males. Why do tomcats (indeed many other species of cats), lots of other mammals, siamese fighting fish, some birds, (the list is too numerous) fight when placed in proximity? Is it due to pheromones? Is this related? Noting that often a fight amongst women is called a "cat fight". I will also pose this question in the Sex pheromone page, which talks exclusively about pheromones of attraction. Apologies in advance who finds this entire line of questioning offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.176.111 (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Pheromonal factors indeed seem to have an effect in the exhibition of some infighting behaviour in females of the same species, and it's actually something that can be quite common depending on the species. However, when it comes to humans this (negative inter-female behaviour) seems to be a topic mostly discussed on the field of neuropsychology and general psychology, and based on my casual search, the effect of pheromones on negative inter-female behaviour or "bitchiness" doesn't seem to be a theory discussed in any source significant enough to add a mention of it to the Wikipedia page. If you happen to come across an article or study from a reputable source discussing this theory, feel free to link it here in the replies and somebody will likely check if it's something that should be added in the article.

Also, please note that this is (sadly) not a forum page to discuss theories or the topic of the Wikipedia page, but rather a discussion page for the development and improvement of the article.

I hope this information finds you well! Hiillosmakkara (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)