Here are some discussions from Profumo's group on Basenotes relating to natural pheromones:
http://www.basenotes.net/group.php?discu...do=discuss
http://www.basenotes.net/group.php?discu...do=discuss
http://www.basenotes.net/group.php?discu...do=discuss
http://www.basenotes.net/group.php?discu...do=discuss
http://www.basenotes.net/group.php?discu...do=discuss
I must mention again that some of the experiments here may seem basic by the standards of this community. Most of the members of Basenotes scoff at the notion of pheromones. The exceptions still aren't quite as advanced as the pheromone community at large, in many ways, but there's quite a lot to be learned from them.
It's often said that the best fragrances are composed of both natural and synthetic ingredients. I don't necessarily agree with this notion, but when it comes to pheromones, my views take a complete 180. The world of natural pheromones is a side just as important to the whole as the synthetic pheromones most of us here are familiar with. The most revered revision of A314, Royal Oil, took this philosophy to heart. The results speak for themselves.
I'd love to see some members here testing natural pheromones. I personally am against the uses of civet, castoreum and deer musk on ethical grounds. Other ingredients which arguably have pheromonal or pheromone-like properties (or are said to) include but are not limited to: ambergris, sandalwood, agarwood, labdanum, spikenard, costus, hyraceum, jasmine grandiflorum, jasmine sambac, tuberose, rose, beeswax, oakmoss, vanilla, frankincense, calamus, fire tree.
The list extends far beyond that point. The definition of a pheromone isn't always clear, so I'm sure some of those I've listed will be disputed. This is fine - take whatever definition you will and apply it in a way that benefits you. I consider a pheromone any ingredient which lifts off the skin and affects human behavior in a socially desirable way, consistent outside of specific life circumstances.
Memory associations to certain smells can be powerful, but because they don't fit equally from one person to the next, this would not qualify a specific scent as a pheromone. For the individual in question, it may as well be.
However, consistency within a specific but broad group, such as caucasians, or older women, would be considered a pheromone because there's some reasonably broad factor to account for the response.
Thanks to renny for leading me to refine my definition somewhat, but again, this is merely how I see things. The definition I've given is entirely subjective. Take that as you will.
I hope to see this thread grow into a large testing ground for a wide variety of natural pheromones. I'd specifically focus on the animalics since their status as pheromones are, for all intents and purposes, indisputable. This group includes civet, castoreum, deer musk, ambergris, hyraceum, and beeswax among others. I'd love to see how some of you respond to these substances (and how others around you respond) when used in isolation. Will they replicate distinct, specific effects you're familiar with, will you notice a broader, more well-rounded response, or will you discover something completely new?
Combinations of these components are equally welcome, though I have a greater personal interest in discovering what they do on their own. My thought process is that these combinations will have been formulated based on smell, not optimal pheromonal benefit. Perhaps there's a connection between the two, or perhaps not. Shannon's (catlord17) own experiments leave me reconsidering whether we should treat these as pheromones to be dosed at a specific range.