Earlier today, I discovered a change to what Google displays as the definition of a “pheromone.”
a chemical substance produced and released into the environment by an animal, especially a mammal or an insect, affecting the behavior or physiology of others of its species.
See for comparison the Wikipedia entry:
My comment: The difference in the definitions can be compared in the context of two books: The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality
Scientists have long known that chemical communication via pheromones is a powerful influence on how animals develop, mate, bond, and nurture their offspring. Human animals are no exception. Pheromones, explain the authors, alter hormone levels, can accelerate puberty, control women’s menstrual cycles, influence our choice in a mate, and even influence our sexual orientation. They help us tell lovers and family members from strangers and are essential to the mother-infant bond. Pheromones influence how often we have sex, and with whom. They influence how the brain develops, what we remember, and how we learn.
See for comparison: Product Description: The Great Pheromone Myth
…renowned olfaction expert Richard L. Doty rejects this idea and states bluntly that — in contrast to insects — pheromones in mammals do not exist.
My comment: From the time I met him, which was soon after publication of “The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality, Dick claimed he was writing a book about human pheromones. I could not have imagined that he would deny that fact that mammalian pheromones exist.
What kind of biologically uninformed social scientist does such a thing, but also fails to mention any of the accumulated evidence for the epigenetic effects of human pheromones that was published in my subsequent works? Hopefully, Richard L. Doty will tell us more about the hopes he had to eliminate the fact that mammalian pheromones, including human pheromones, obviously exist.