Что ответить дарвинисту? Часть I

Smith H.R., Lautenschlager R.A. Gypsy moth predators. / In: The gypsy moth: research toward integrated pest management. Ed. by Doane C.C., McManus M.L. Technical Bulletin 1584, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, 1981. P. 96–125.

Smith H.R., Lautenschlager R.A. Predators of the Gypsy Moth / Gypsy moth handbook. Combined Forest Pest Research and Development Program. Agriculture Handbook № 534. U.S.D.A. 1978. 72 p.

Smith P.D. Darwinism in a flutter: did a moth show evolution in action? The Guardian, May 11, 2002.

Sourakov A. Two heads are better than one: false head allows Calycopis cecrops (Lycaenidae) to escape predation by a Jumping Spider, Phidippus pulcherrimus (Salticidae) // Journal of Natural History. 2013. V. 47. № 15–16. P. 1047–1054.

Stenico M., Lloyd A.T., Sharp P.M. Codon usage in Caenorhabditis elegans: delineation of translational selection and mutational biases // Nucleic Acids Res. 1994. V. 22. P. 2437–2446.

Stevens M., Graham J., Winney I.S., Cantor A. (c) Testing Thayer’s hypothesis: can camouflage work by distraction? // Biol Lett. 2008. V. 4. P. 648–650.

Stevens M., Hardman C.J., Stubbins C.L. (а) Conspicuousness, not eye mimicry, makes «eyespots» effective antipredator signals // Behav Ecol. 2008. V. 19. P. 525–531.

Stevens M., Marshall K.L.A., Troscianko J., Finlay S., Burnand D., Chadwick S.L. Revealed by conspicuousness: distractive markings reduce camouflage // Behavioral Ecology. 2013. V. 24. P. 213–222.

Stevens M., Merilaita S. Animal camouflage: current issues and new perspectives // Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2009. V. 364. P. 423–427.

Stevens M., Stubbins C., Hardman C.J. (b) The anti-predator function of «eyespots» on camouflaged and conspicuous prey // Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2008. V. 62. P. 1787–1793.

Steward R.C. Industrial and non-industrial melanism in the peppered moth Biston betularia (L.) // Ecol. Entomol. 1977. V. 2. P. 231–243.

Stobbe N., Schaefer H.M. Enhancement of chromatic contrast increases predation risk for striped butterflies // Proc. R. Soc. B. 2008. V. 275. P. 1535–1541.

Suga H., Tschopp P., Graziussi D.F., Stierwald M., Schmid V., Gehring W. Flexibly deployed Pax genes in eye development at the early evolution of animals demonstrated by studies on a hydrozoan jellyfish // PNAS. 2010. V. 107. P. 14263-14268.

Syriatowicz A., Brooks R. Sexual responsiveness is condition-depended in female guppies, but preference functions are not // BMC Ecology. 2004. V. 4. P. 5.

Takahashi M., Arita H., Hiraiwa-Hasegawa M., Hasegawa T. Peahens do not prefer peacocks with more elaborate trains // Animal Behaviour. 2008. V. 75. P. 1209–1219.

Turner А.Н., Pol D., Clarke J.A., Erickson G.M., Norell M.A. Basal dromaeosaurid and size evolution preceding avian flight // Science. 2007. V. 317. P. 1378–1381.

Vallin A., Dimitrova M., Kodandaramaiah U., Merilaita S. Deflective effect and the effect of prey detectability on anti-predator function of eyespots // Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 2011. V. 65. P. 1629–1636.

Vallin A., Jakobsson S., Lind J., Wiklund C. Prey survival by predator intimidation: an experimental study of peacock butterfly defence against blue tits // Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2005. V. 272. P. 1203–1207.

Vallin A., Jakobsson S., Lind J., Wiklund C. Crypsis versus intimidation – anti-predation defence in three closely related butterflies // Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 2006. V. 59. № 3. P. 455–459.

Vallin A., Jakobsson S., Wiklund C. «An eye for an eye» – on the generality of the intimidating quality of eyespots in a butterfly and hawkmoth // Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2007. V. 61. P. 1419–1424.

Vallin A., Jakobsson S., Wiklund C. Constant eyespot display as a primary defence – survival of male and female emperor moths attacked by blue tits // J Res Lepidoptera. 2010. V. 43. P. 9–17.

van't Hof A.E., Edmonds N., Dalikova M., Marec F., Saccheri I.J. Industrial melanism in British peppered moths has a singular and recent mutational origin // Science. 2011. V. 332. № 6032. P. 958–960.