Individual Odortypes

  • V. V. Voznessenskaya
  • V. M. Parfyonova
  • E. P. Zinkevich
  • A. N. Severtzov

Abstract

Individual recognition and evaluation of individual physiological state are key issues in chemical communication among populations of animals. Ultimately, reproductive success and survival depend on the solution of these problems. The capacity to discriminate between conspecifics as well as the ability to evaluate physiological status on the basis of individual odor has been demonstrated in a variety of mammals (for examples, see Halpin, 1980; Bowers and Alexander, 1967; Carr, Krames and Costanzo, 1970; Johnston, 1983). The occurrence of odor(s) specific to the individual suggests reliability of individual odortypes. Indeed, some mammals are known to maintain consistency in odortypes for comparatively long periods, e.g., for at least two weeks (Kalkowski, 1967). One principle of such a coding system should be the absence of duplication, at least in the population of animals that share chemosensory information.

Keywords

Urine Sample Individual Recognition Unique Substance Individual Odor Target Odor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bowers, T.U., and Alexander, B.K., 1967, Mice: Individual recognition by olfactory cues, Science, 158: 1208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carr, W.G., Krames, L., and Costanzo, D.G., 1970, Previous sexual experience and olfactory preference for novel versus original sex partners in rats, J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 71: 216.Google Scholar
  3. Halpin, Z.T., 1980, Individual odors and individual recognition: Review and commentary, Biol. Behay., 5: 233.Google Scholar
  4. Johnston, R.E., 1983. Mechanisms of individual discrimination, in: “Chemical Signals in Vertebrates,” D. Müller-Schwarze and R.M. Silverstein, ed., Plenum Press, New York-London.Google Scholar
  5. Kalkowski, W. 1967, Olfactory basis of social orientation in white mouse, Folic biol. (PRL), 15: 69.Google Scholar
  6. Miller, G.A., 1956, The magic number 7 plus or minus: Some limit in our capacity for porcessing information, Psychol. Rev., 63: 81.Google Scholar
  7. Minor, A.V., 1982, Theoretical possibilities of olfactory signals coding, in: “Chemical Signals in Animals,” Academician V.E. Sokolov, ed., Nauka Publishers, Moscow (in Russian).Google Scholar
  8. Neuhaus, W., 1956, Die Unterscheidungsfähigkeit des Hundes für Duftgemische, Ztschr. Vergl. Physiol., 39: 25.Google Scholar
  9. Rylnikov, V.A., 1990, Breeding, age composition and mortality, in: “Norway Rat. Systematics, Ecology, Population Control,” V.E. Sokolov and E.V. Karasjova, ed., Nauka Publishers, Moscow (in Russian).Google Scholar
  10. Shehter, M., 1981, “Visual Discrimination: Regulation and Mechanisms,” Pedagogica Publishers, Moscow (in Russian).Google Scholar
  11. Wysocki, C.J., Dorries, K., and Beauchamp, G.K., 1989, Ability to perceive androstenone can be acquired by ostensibly anosmic people, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.. USA, 86: 7976.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. V. Voznessenskaya
    • 1
  • V. M. Parfyonova
    • 1
  • E. P. Zinkevich
    • 1
  • A. N. Severtzov
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Evolutionary Animal Morphology and EcologyMoscow V-71Russia

Personalised recommendations