Taste Stimuli as Possible Messengers

  • L. M. Beidler


It is well known that insects may use highly specific pheromones to release stereotyped behavior leading to reproduction. In this regard the insect has become the model for other animals, and odors have become emphasized as the means of communication. Consequently, another chemosensory system, taste, is seldom considered in the study of pheromone-released behavior by these other animals. This neglect of taste is perhaps understandable when considering distant communication in non-aquatic species since in such species taste communication would most often require body contact. (In aquatic animals several contingencies, including the arrangement of the receptors and the water solubility of the stimuli, often convert taste into a distance sensory system.) However, it is conceivable that even for non-aquatic animals much information might still be transferred during body contact using the taste system to receive the chemical signals. Gross observations of the mating behavior of many mammals would indicate that taste is indeed used as a cue, and recent research of the secretion of the gerbil Harderian gland suggests that tastes, as well as odors, may be involved in groom-induced behavior (Thiessen, Clancy and Goodwin, 1976). If indeed tastes can operate as conspecific messengers, several questions become pertinent: How varied are the taste qualities? To what kinds of chemicals and with what specificity is the gustatory system responsive? How sensitive is the system to these chemicals and how does the gustatory system compare with the olfactory system in its ability to act as an information channel?


Olfactory System Taste Receptor Monosodium Glutamate Taste Quality Taste Stimulus 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beidler, L.M. 1966. Advances in Chemistry Series 56: 1–28.Google Scholar
  2. Cohn, G. 1914. Die Organischen Geschmacksstoffe. Franz Siemenroth SW 11, Hafenplatz 9.Google Scholar
  3. Dethier, V.G. 1961. Biol. Bull. 121: 456–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Galun, R., and S.H. Kindler. 1968. J. Insect Physiol. 14: 1409–1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gurin, S., and W.E. Carr. 1971. Science 174: 293–295.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kurihara, K., and L.M. Beidler. 1968. Science 161: 1241–1243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Piutti, A. 1886. Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. 103: 134.Google Scholar
  8. Caprio, J.T. 1976. Doctoral Thesis: Olfactory and Gustatory Responses of Catfish to Amino Acids and Derivatives. Florida State University.Google Scholar
  9. Von Skramlik, E. 1937. Handbuch der Biologischen Arbeitsmethoden 5: 1727–1774.Google Scholar
  10. Thiessen, D.D., A. Clancy, and M. Goodwin. 1976. J. Chem. Ecol. 2: 231–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. van der Wel, H. 1974. Miracle Fruit, Katemfe, and Serendipity Berry. In Symposium: Sweeteners, p. 194 ( Ed. G.E. Inglett) Avi Publishing Co., Inc., Westport, Conn.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. M. Beidler
    • 1
  1. 1.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations