Precopulatory Choice

Precopulatory choice

1. Grammer Karl; Fink Bernhard [a]; Moller Anders P; Thornhill Randy. Darwinian aesthetics: Sexual selection and the biology of beauty. [Literature Review] Biological Reviews (Cambridge). [print] 78(3). August 2003 2003. 385-407. 2. Wong Bob B M [a]; Jennions Michael D. Costs influence male mate choice in a freshwater fish. [Article] Proceedings of the Royal Society of London - Series B: Biological Sciences. [print] 270(Supplement 1). 7 August 2003 2003. S36-S38. 3. Werner Noam Y [a]; Lotem Arnon. Choosy males in a haplochromine cichlid: First experimental evidence for male mate choice in a lekking species. [Article] Animal Behaviour. [print] 66(2). August 2003 2003. 293-298. 4. Parga J A [a]. Male mate choice in ringtailed lemurs (Lemur catta): The relationship between male mating effort and female reproductive potential. [Meeting] American Journal of Primatology. [print] 60(Supplement 1). 2003. 50- 51. 5. Romero-Pujante Marilo; Hoi Herbert [a]; Blomqvist Donald; Valera Francisco. Tail length and mutual mate choice in bearded tits (Panurus biarmicus). [Article] Ethology. [print] 108(10). October, 2002. 885-895. http://www.blackwell.de/eth.htm 6. Kokko Hanna [a]; Monaghan Pat [a]. Predicting the direction of sexual selection. [Article] Ecology Letters. [print] 4(2). March, 2001. 159-165. 7. Bergstrom Carl T; Real Leslie A [a]. Towards a theory of mutual mate choice: Lessons from two-sided matching. [Article] Evolutionary Ecology Research. [print] 2(4). May, 2000. 493-508. 8. Hall K C; Hanlon R T [a]. Principal features of the mating system of a large spawning aggregation of the giant Australian cuttlefish Sepia apama (Mollusca: Cephalopoda). [Article] Marine Biology (Berlin). [print] 140(3). March, 2002. 533-545. 9. Legrand Rebecca S; Morse Douglass H [a]. Factors driving extreme sexual size dimorphism of a sit-and-wait predator under low density. [Article] Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. [print] 71(4). December, 2000. 643-664. 10. Saether Stein Are [a]. Female calls in lek-mating birds: Indirect mate choice, female competition for mates, or direct mate choice? [Article] Behavioral Ecology. [print] 13(3). May-June 2002 2002. 344-352.

Postcopulatory, Prefertilization choice

1. Pizzari T [a]; Birkhead T R. Female feral fowl eject sperm of subdominant males. [Article] Nature (London). [print] 405(6788). 15 June, 2000. 787-789. 2. Simmons L W [a]; Parker G A; Stockley P. Sperm displacement in the yellow dung fly, Scatophaga stercoraria: An investigation of male and female processes. [Article] American Naturalist. 153(3). March, 1999. 302-314. 3. Dixson Alan [a]. Sexual selection by cryptic female choice and the evolution of primate sexuality. [Literature Review] Evolutionary Anthropology. [print] 11(Supplement 1). 2002. 195-199. 4. Qazi M C Bloch [a]. A potential mechanism for cryptic female choice in a flour beetle. [Article] Journal of Evolutionary Biology. [print] 16(1). January 2003 2003. 170-176. 5. Burger Matthias; Nentwig Wolfgang; Kropf Christian [a]. Complex genital structures indicate cryptic female choice in a haplogyne spider (Arachnida, Araneae, Oonopidae, Gamasomorphinae). [Article] Journal of Morphology. [print] 255(1). January 2003 2003. 80-93. 6. Birkhead Timothy R [a]; Pizzari Tommaso. Postcopulatory sexual selection. [Literature Review] Nature Reviews Genetics. [print] 3(4). April, 2002. 262-273.\ 7. Ward Paul I [a]. Cryptic female choice in the yellow dung fly Scathophaga stercoraria (L.). [Article] Evolution. [print] 54(5). October, 2000. 1680-1686.

Postfertilization choice

1. Lessells C M [a]. Parentally biased favouritism: Why should parents specialize in caring for different offspring? [Article] Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences. [print] 357(1419). 29 March, 2002. 381-403. http://www.jstor.org/journals/02643960.html 2. Gil Diego [a]; Graves Jeff; Hazon Neil; Wells Alan. Male attractiveness and differential testosterone investment in zebra finch eggs. [Article] Science (Washington D C). 286(5437). Oct. 1, 1999. 126-128. 3. Sockman Keith W [a]; Schwabl Hubert. Yolk androgens reduce offspring survival. [Article] Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences Series B. [print] 267(1451). 22 July, 2000. 1451-1456. 4. Muller Wendt [a]; Eising Corine M; Dijkstra Cor; Groothuis Ton G G. Sex differences in yolk hormones depend on maternal social status in Leghorn chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus). [Article] Proceedings of the Royal Society of London - Series B: Biological Sciences. [print] 269(1506). 7 November 2002 2002. 2249-2255.