Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process.

[1]  C. Darwin.  The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex: INDEX , 1871 .

[2]  R A Fisher,et al.  The evolution of sexual preference. , 1915, The Eugenics review.

[3]  R. Redheffer,et al.  Mathematics of Physics and Modern Engineering , 1960 .

[4]  A. J. Weir.  Lebesgue Integration and Measure , 1973 .

[5]  A. Zahavi.  Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. , 1975, Journal of theoretical biology.

[6]  J M Smith,et al.  Evolution and the theory of games , 1976 .

[7]  A. Zahavi.  The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). , 1977, Journal of theoretical biology.

[8]  B. Charlesworth.  Evidence against Fisher's theory of dominance , 1979, Nature.

[9]  J. Kalbfleisch,et al.  The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data , 1980 .

[10]  R. Lande.  Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. , 1981, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  M. Kirkpatrick.  SEXUAL SELECTION AND THE EVOLUTION OF FEMALE CHOICE , 1982, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[12]  M. Andersson.  EVOLUTION OF CONDITION‐DEPENDENT SEX ORNAMENTS AND MATING PREFERENCES: SEXUAL SELECTION BASED ON VIABILITY DIFFERENCES , 1986, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[13]  Mark Kirkpatrick,et al.  The Handicap Mechanism of Sexual Selection Does Not Work , 1986, The American Naturalist.

[14]  Andrew Pomiankowski,et al.  Sexual selection: the handicap principle does work – sometimes , 1987, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[15]  A. Grafen.  Biological signals as handicaps. , 1990, Journal of theoretical biology.