It is possible that urination in mice replaces the specialized pheromone setting behaviors in other species, since it appears to be under a certain degree of social control. Reynolds (1971) estimated ... It is possible that urination in mice replaces the specialized pheromone setting behaviors in other species, since it appears to be under a certain degree of social control. Reynolds (1971) estimated the amount of urination occurring in encounters between cage owning mice and visitors of both sexes to home cages by measuring the area of urine, as revealed by the blot on the absorbent paper lining of the oor of the cage. The pheromone was greatest in adult male/adult female encounters according to http://infospeak.org/attract-women-pheromones/ It was thought unlikely that this was a fear response since no fighting occurred in these interactions. Urination was scanty in female/female encounters, but was more abundant in cage owning males than in their male visitors. It seems logical to argue that in mixed sex encounters the continued proximity of a partner has an obvious biological advantage, and that the ample supply of urine excreted produces the communicatory where with all for this advantage to be exploited by pheromones. Urination might then exert an inuence in social structure and ecological stability of the population, involving the now well known effects of male odor on female reproductive cycles. Here we can detect one of many paradoxes resulting from a wide interpretation of closely controlled laboratory experiments. Bruce (1960) pointed out over a decade ago that presence of a strange male, or even his urine in the cage of a newly fertilized female, caused termination of the pregnancy by resorption of human pheromones. It is hard to see the adaptive signicance of this phenomenon which acts to reduce population density and increase strain and possible malaise to the individual female. Reynolds’ (1971) work suggests that there is a strong biological advantage to be gained by contrived proximity of a partner of the opposite sex, yet, if the Bruce effect is to occur, this advantage must (or possibly’, depending on stage of pregnancy) include the sacrifice of a litter. The ecological and evolutionary issues here are complex and there is insufficient space to discuss them more fully. As has been said before, the social implications of these laboratory studies cannot fully be gauged until populations living in natural, or near natural, conditions have been studied. The level of social pheromone dominance achieved by individual mammals in populations has been much studied by workers on large mammals. Few studies have been conducted into olfactory transmission of status information in small mammals. Krames et al. (1969) demonstrated the occurrence of a status signal produced by laboratory rats. Rats of known hierarchical status, measured by the amount of time spent guarding the only food pot in a cage housing four individuals, were presented with cardboard cylinders that had previously held either a dominant or a submissive male for one hour. Their response was assessed by the length of time they spent investigating the pheromones. Dominant rats paid little heed to the odor of other dominants and great heed to the odor of submissives. Submissive rats divided their time more ' equally spending only a little longer at the source of ‘submissive’ odor than at the source of ‘dominant’ odor. No attempt was made to identify the precise location of the origin of the pheromone odor nor, regrettably, what the active ingredient for dominance is in the total odorous output of the rat. Source: Free Articles from ArticlesFactory.com Alexander P is a blogger that studies pheromones.