• Andersson, M. 1986. Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences; sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution 0: 804816.
  • Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
  • Baker, R.H. & Wilkinson, G.S. 2001. Phylogenetic analysis of sexual dimorphism and eyespan allometry in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Evolution 55: 13731385.
  • Burkhardt, D. & De la Motte, I. 1985. Selective pressures, variability, and sexual dimorphism in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Naturwissenschaften. 72: 204206.
  • Cotton, S., Fowler, K & Pomiankowski, A. 2004a. Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 271: 771783.
  • Cotton, S., Fowler, K. & Pomiankowski, A. 2004b. Condition dependence of sexual ornament size and variation in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni (Diptera: Diopsidae). Evolution 58: 10381046.
  • Crawley, M.J. 1993. GLIM for Ecologists. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK.
  • David, P., Hingle, A., Greig, D., Rutherford, A., Pomiankowski, A. & Fowler, K. 1998. Male sexual ornament size but not asymmetry reflects condition in stalk-eyed flies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 265: 22112216.
  • David, P., Bjorksten, T., Fowler, K. & Pomiankowski, A. 2000. Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyed flies. Nature 406: 186188.
  • Fisher, R.A. 1915. The evolution of sexual preference. Eugenics Rev. 7: 184192.
  • Fisher, R.A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
  • Grafen, A. 1990. Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J. Theor. Biol. 144: 473516.
  • Gullan, P.J. & Cranston, P.S. 1994. The Insects: an Outline of Entomology. Chapman and Hall, London.
  • Hingle, A., Fowler, K & Pomiankowski, A. 2001. Size-dependent mate preference in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. Anim. Behav. 61: 589595.
  • Hochberg-Stasny, T.A. 1985. Biology, Behaviour and Life Cycle of Sphyracephala brevicornis Say (Diptera: Diopsidae). MS thesis. University of West Virginia, Virginia.
  • Iwasa, Y. & Pomiankowski, A. 1994. The evolution of mate preferences for multiple handicaps. Evolution 48: 853867.
  • Iwasa, Y. & Pomiankowski, A. 1999. Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J. Theor. Biol. 200: 97109.
  • Iwasa, Y., Pomiankowski, A. & Nee, S. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The ‘handicap’ principle. Evolution 45: 14311442.
  • Johnstone, R.A. 1995. Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence. Biol. Rev. 70: 165.
  • Pomiankowski, A. 1987. Sexual selection: the handicap principle does work – sometimes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 231: 123145.
  • Pomiankowski, A. 1988. The evolution of female mate preferences for male genetic quality. Oxford Surv. Evol. Biol. 5: 136184.
  • Rice, W.R. 1989. Analysing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43: 223225.
  • Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F.J. 1995. Biometry, 3rd edn. Freeman, New York.
  • Wilkinson, G.S. & Dodson, G.N. 1997. Function and evolution of antlers and eye stalks in flies. In: The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids (J.Choe & B.Crespi, eds), pp. 310328. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Wilkinson, G.S. & Reillo, P.R. 1994. Female preference response to artificial selection on an exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 255: 16.
  • Wilkinson, G.S., Kahler, H. & Baker, R.H. 1998. Evolution of female mating preferences in stalk-eyed flies. Behav. Ecol. 9: 525533.