Canine anal glands and chemical signals (pheromones)
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (Impact Factor: 1.56). 01/1970; 155(12):1995-6.
Article: Scent marking in Mammals[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This paper reviews experimental and field studies on scent marking behaviour. The occurrence and effects of scent marking are considered in particular, and a number of areas for further research are made apparent. Marking behaviour in mammals is often stated to be ‘territorial’ or, more specifically, to play a role in territorial defence. In fact there is a shortage of evidence to support this view; many of the relevant observations are anecdotal or interpreted with preconceived notions of function in mind. While marking is clearly associated with aggressive behaviour in many species and may therefore be related in some way to territorial behaviour, its role in aggression is not understood. Moreover, there is evidence to support a number of other theories of function some of which are unrelated to territory. It seems that, as with any other mode of communication, scent marking has become adapted for use in a variety of contexts. It probably has more than one function in any one species and different functions in different species.Animal Behaviour 08/1973; 21(3-21):521-535. DOI:10.1016/S0003-3472(73)80012-0 · 3.14 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The volatile organic compounds from the anal sac secretions of male and female dogs and coyotes were examined using gas chromatography and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Short chain (C2–C6) acids and trimethylamine were major constituents. Changes in the type and abundance of the volatiles were examined across state of estrus, species, and gender. No consistent difference in the pattern of volatiles was detected that was indicative of estrus state or gender. Dogs displayed larger amounts of all constituents. The anal sac secretions of a third carnivore, the cat, were examined to see if they contained trimethylamine: none was found.Journal of Chemical Ecology 03/1976; 2(2):177-186. DOI:10.1007/BF00987740 · 2.75 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In Experiment 1 male dogs were observed visiting either a tethered male or a tethered nonestrous female. The duration and frequency of visits and the parts of the stimulus animal that were investigated were recorded. In Experiment 2 male and female dogs were observed in a series of two-choice tests to determine their visiting preferences toward males and nonestrous and estrous females. In Experiment 3 similar two-choice olfactory tests were employed to demonstrate investigatory preferences for urine, feces, anal gland and vaginal secretions, saliva, and ear wax samples from the stimulus animals. The females were brought into artificial estrus with injections of estradiol benzoate, and changes were observed in their visiting and olfactory preferences and in their attractiveness to male dogs. Males spent less time visiting males than they spent visiting females, regardless of the physiological condition of the latter. However, the visiting time devoted to estrous females was longer than that spent with females not in heat. These preferences may be partially explained by the findings that male dogs find estrous urine and vaginal secretions more attractive than their nonestrous counterparts and that they prefer female urine and feces compared to corresponding samples from male dogs. Following the induction of artificial estrus, female subjects spent significantly more time investigating male dogs and male urine when compared to female dogs and female urine, respectively. Male dogs and to a lesser extent bitches urinated more frequently in the vicinity of the preferred animals and odor stimuli.Behavioral Biology 09/1977; 20(4):471-81. DOI:10.1016/S0091-6773(77)91079-3
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.