Talk:Apocrine sweat gland

Anatomy: Microanatomy Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to microanatomy.

Animal anatomy C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Links to Sweat Gland Article

I've been looking at this article, Apocrine sweat gland and Sweat gland and there seems to be a lot of overlap. In fact, because Sweat gland is basically just a summary of what the other two should contain, I'm not sure this article and Apocrine sweat gland may even be needed. Its just confusing to look for information on Apocrine or Eccrine glands, then find these stubs, when Sweat gland has the information. Thoughts? Lactomar (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think eventually the apocrine and eccrine glands should be their own articles, with the sweat gland article simply giving some introductory information on them and then linking over to the main apocrine or eccrine articles. I have not done this myself, as I have been working on some other things, but perhaps you could tackle this project? kilbad (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apocrine glands

The article says, that the apocrine sweat glands can be found in the skin of the face. i have read some books but non of them mention that face contain apocrine sweat glands. Are you sure that it is present in the skin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharaja2002 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shady source

the book about the female body is hardly a "source" for this article, and is apparently only included to mention the supposed racial differences. It mentions human pheromones as if they were scientific fact, while the validity of this claim is still largely undecided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.125.180 (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Europeans and Africans are not the same

the text makes it easy to infer that Europeans and Africans have the same number of glands.

It's not true. the africans sweat a lot more, and are much more prone to B.O.

the text should be altered to reflect this

85.139.115.92 (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Base things on fact, not feelings. Sweat from apocrine glands doesn't even have an odor until it contacts bacteria. Compared to East Asians (as the text implies, for those whom read correctly)... both groups sweat more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.35.247 (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No variation between racial groups?

I noticed that the article now states that there is no variation between racial groups based on a study that says all such studies had "methodological flaws". This seems ridiculous because east asians notoriously don't need deodorant. It's notoriously difficult for foreigners to find deodorant in Japan because of this. https://www.quora.com/Do-Japanese-people-use-deodorant Obviously my objection is "not as scientific" as citing a study but how does it make sense to assume one study automatically invalidate all other studies? 2601:646:9B01:2100:3D7A:E0BE:9227:251 (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the cited article 31 was written in 2002, before any of the research into ABCC11. I'll try to get to that later, but for anyone reading this, the last line in Prevalence definitely needs a revision. Shiritai (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Function?

A clear statement (or section) on function (human and or non-human) would be appreciated. 216.75.114.13 (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]