References:
Andersson M. B. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Andersson M., Simmons L. W. 2006. Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol, 21: 296–302
Basolo A. L. 1990. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science, 250: 808–810
Basolo A. L. 1995. A further examination of a pre-existing bias favouring a sword in the genus Xiphophorus. Anim Behav, 50: 365–375
Bush S. L., Dyson M. L., Halliday T. R. 1996. Selective phonotaxis by males in the Majorcan midwife toad. Proc R Soc Lond B, 263: 913–917
Cui J. G., Tang Y. Z., Narins P. M. 2012. Real estate ads in Emei music frog vocalizations: female preference for calls emanating from burrows. Biol Lett, 8: 337–340
Cui J. G., Wang Y. S., Brauth S., Tang Y. Z. 2010. A novel female call incites male-female interaction and male-male competition in the Emei music frog, Babina daunchina. Anim Behav, 80: 181–187
Fang G. Z., Jiang F., Yang P., Cui J. G., Brauth S. E., Tang Y. Z. 2013. Male vocal competition is dynamic and strongly affected by social contexts in music frogs. Anim Cogn, 17: 483–494
Felsenstein J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution, 39: 783–791
Fisher R. A. 1958. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. New York: Dover
Gerhardt, H. C. 1994. The evolution of vocalization in frogs and toads. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 293–324
Gerhardt H. C., Dyson M. L., Tanner S. D. 1996. Dynamic acoustic properties of the advertisement calls of gray tree frogs: patterns of variability and female choice. Behav Ecol, 7: 7–18
Gerhardt H. C., Huber F. 2002. Acoustic communication in insects and frogs: Common problems and diverse solutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Heisler I. L. 1984. Quantitative genetic model for the origin of mating preferences. Evolution, 38: 1283–1295
Kirkpatrick M., Ryan M. J. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature, 350: 33–38
McClelland B. E., Wilczynski W., Ryan M. J. 1996. Correlations between call characteristics and morphology in male cricket frogs, Acris crepitans. The J Exp Biol, 99: 1907–1919
McCracken K. G., Sheldon F. H. 1997. Avian vocalizations and phylogenetic signal. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 94: 3833–3836
Morris M. R., Ryan M. J. 1996. Sexual difference in signal-receiver coevolution. Anim Behav, 52: 1017–1024
Morris M. R., Yoon S. L. 1989. A mechanism for female choice for large males in the treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 25: 65–71
Rosenthal G. G., Evans C. S. 1998. Female preference for swords in Xiphophorus helleri reflects a bias for large apparent size. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 95: 4431–4436
Rodríguez, R. L., Ramaswamy, K., & Cocroft, R. B. 2006. Evidence that female preferences have shaped male signal evolution in a clade of specialized plant-feeding insects. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 273(1601), 2585–2593
Ryan M. H., Rand A. S. 1993. Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghost of biases past. Proc R Soc Lond B, 340: 187–195
Ryan M. J. 1990. Sensory systems, sexual selection, and sensory exploitation. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, 7: 157–195
Ryan M. J. 1994. Mechanistic studies in sexual selection. In L. Real (Ed.), Behavioral Mechanisms in Evolution and Ecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 190–125
Ryan M. J. 1998. Receiver biases, sexual selection and the evolution of sex differences. Science, 281: 1999–2003
Ryan M. J., Cummings M. E. 2013. Perceptual biases and mate choice. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst, 44: 437–459
Ryan M. J., Wilczynski W. 1988. Coevolution of sender and receiver: effect on local mate preference in cricket frogs. Science, 240: 1786–1788
Saitou N., Nei M. 1987. The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol, 4: 406–425
Schul J., Bush S. L. 2002. Non-parallel coevolution of sender and receiver in the acoustic communication system of treefrogs. Proc R Soc Lond B, 269: 1847–1852
Tamura K. 1992. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions when there are strong transition-transversion and G+C-content biases. Mol Biol Evol, 9: 678–687
Tamura K., Peterson D., Peterson N., Stecher G., Nei M., Kumar S. 2011. MEGA5: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis using Maximum Likelihood, Evolutionary Distance, and Maximum Parsimony Methods. Mol Biol Evol, 28: 2731–2739
Welch, A. M., Semlitsch, R. D., & Gerhardt, H. C. 1998. Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science, 280(5371), 1928–1930
Xu F., Cui J. G., Song J., Brauth S. E., Tang Y. Z. 2012. Male competition strategies change when information concerning female receptivity is available. Behav Ecol, 23: 307–312