By Arnold Scheibel, M.D.

Although it is a temptation to explore some of the fascinating psychodynamics involved in this discussion of olfactory dreams, my comments will be limited to some possibly pertinent aspects of the physiology underlying these phenomenon. The authors have pointed out—and justifiably—that the sense of smell is generally related to more primitive ontogenetic phases of development of the individual. The sense of smell also becomes a far more powerful telo-receptive sense as one descends through the vertebrate scale. We infer that olfactory sensitivity is more highly developed in the infant, who can use this sensation at close range in relation to his mother and to the products of his own body, whereas with increasing development, his horizons widen and his interests retreat farther from the limits of his body. Concomitant with this the development of super ego repressive forces are presumed to further hobble a sensory ability whose primary areas of gratification begin to receive negative valuations. However, we wonder whether it is entirely justified to assume that the sense of smell is so much more important in the newborn organism. Several observations might tend to call this into question.

In the imprinting experiments of Lorentz 4, 5 it is found that frequently the newborn can be transferred to a synthetic mother such as a wooden decoy duck or a furred teddy bear, or to a human being. Certainly the odors of the last three objects are qualitatively different and quantitatively less intense than those of the original parents. In our own experience we were able to get a young goat within an hour of birth before he had suckled from his mother. One or two applications of the baby bottle within the first four to six hours of birth were apparently sufficient to “imprint” the young animal. Thereafter he invariably came to us, even in the presence of his own mother. Either the attraction of the maternal odor had not yet achieved significance for the young animal or else it did