Fry J
Proc Biol Sci. 2024; 291(2015):20232366.
PMID: 38264777
PMC: 10806399.
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2023.2366.
Fitschen-Brown M, Morris M
PLoS One. 2023; 18(6):e0287843.
PMID: 37384757
PMC: 10310027.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287843.
Snow S, Prum R
Evolution. 2023; 77(7):1564-1577.
PMID: 37260260
PMC: 10309969.
DOI: 10.1093/evolut/qpad074.
Lerch B, Servedio M
PLoS Biol. 2023; 21(4):e3002059.
PMID: 37011094
PMC: 10101644.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002059.
Flintham E, Savolainen V, Mullon C
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023; 120(10):e2211668120.
PMID: 36862690
PMC: 10013744.
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2211668120.
The evolution of mating preferences for genetic attractiveness and quality in the presence of sensory bias.
Henshaw J, Fromhage L, Jones A
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022; 119(33):e2206262119.
PMID: 35939704
PMC: 9388091.
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2206262119.
A reexamination of theoretical arguments that indirect selection on mate preference is likely to be weaker than direct selection.
Fry J
Evol Lett. 2022; 6(2):110-117.
PMID: 35386835
PMC: 8966468.
DOI: 10.1002/evl3.276.
Evolution of prudent predation in complex food webs.
Gutierrez Al-Khudhairy O, Rossberg A
Ecol Lett. 2022; 25(5):1055-1074.
PMID: 35229972
PMC: 9540554.
DOI: 10.1111/ele.13979.
Strong spatial population structure shapes the temporal coevolutionary dynamics of costly female preference and male display.
Tschol M, Reid J, Bocedi G
Evolution. 2021; 76(3):636-648.
PMID: 34964487
PMC: 9302702.
DOI: 10.1111/evo.14426.
Genetic coupling of signal and preference facilitates sexual isolation during rapid speciation.
Xu M, Shaw K
Proc Biol Sci. 2019; 286(1913):20191607.
PMID: 31640515
PMC: 6834049.
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2019.1607.
Female resistance to sexual coercion can evolve to preserve the indirect benefits of mate choice.
Snow S, Alonzo S, Servedio M, Prum R
J Evol Biol. 2019; 32(6):545-558.
PMID: 30817033
PMC: 7045708.
DOI: 10.1111/jeb.13436.
A perspective on sensory drive.
Fuller R, Endler J
Curr Zool. 2018; 64(4):465-470.
PMID: 30108627
PMC: 6084569.
DOI: 10.1093/cz/zoy052.
Evolution of a mating preference for a dual-utility trait used in intrasexual competition in genetically monogamous populations.
Stern C, Servedio M
Ecol Evol. 2017; 7(19):8008-8016.
PMID: 29043052
PMC: 5632625.
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3145.
Cultural sexual selection in monogamous human populations.
Nakahashi W
R Soc Open Sci. 2017; 4(6):160946.
PMID: 28680657
PMC: 5493899.
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.160946.
Energetic cost of tail streamers in the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica).
Cuervo J, de Lope F, Moller A, Moreno J
Oecologia. 2017; 108(2):252-258.
PMID: 28307836
DOI: 10.1007/BF00334648.
Context matters: sexual signaling loss in digital organisms.
Weigel E, Testa N, Peer A, Garnett S
Ecol Evol. 2015; 5(17):3725-36.
PMID: 26380700
PMC: 4567875.
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.1631.
Evolution of female multiple mating: A quantitative model of the "sexually selected sperm" hypothesis.
Bocedi G, Reid J
Evolution. 2014; 69(1):39-58.
PMID: 25330405
PMC: 4312924.
DOI: 10.1111/evo.12550.
The evolutionary consequences of disrupted male mating signals: an agent-based modelling exploration of endocrine disrupting chemicals in the guppy.
Senior A, Nakagawa S, Grimm V
PLoS One. 2014; 9(7):e103100.
PMID: 25047080
PMC: 4105596.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103100.
The relationship between sexual selection and sexual conflict.
Kokko H, Jennions M
Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2014; 6(9):a017517.
PMID: 25038050
PMC: 4142970.
DOI: 10.1101/cshperspect.a017517.
Signaling efficacy drives the evolution of larger sexual ornaments by sexual selection.
Tazzyman S, Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A
Evolution. 2013; 68(1):216-29.
PMID: 24099137
PMC: 3920633.
DOI: 10.1111/evo.12255.