Joined: May 2002
Other Nilsson papers (Web of Science search):
FROM CORNEA TO RETINAL IMAGE IN INVERTEBRATE EYES
TRENDS NEUROSCI 13 (2): 55-64 FEB 1990
VISION OPTICS AND EVOLUTION - NATURES ENGINEERING HAS PRODUCED ASTONISHING DIVERSITY IN EYE DESIGN
BIOSCIENCE 39 (5): 298-307 MAY 1989
ODSELIUS R, NILSSON DE
REGIONALLY DIFFERENT OMMATIDIAL STRUCTURE IN THE COMPOUND EYE OF THE WATER-FLEA POLYPHEMUS (CLADOCERA, CRUSTACEA)
P ROY SOC LOND B BIO 217 (1207): 177-& 1983
Also see the PubMed search.
Regarding Nilsson and Pelger 1994, Web of Science reveals that it has been cited 32 times in their database. It would be instructive I think to see how many papers actually characterize the paper as a stochastic simulation. For instance, Thornhill and Ussery 2000 ("A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution," J THEOR BIOL 203 (2): 111-116 ISI PubMed) write:
(b) Parallel direct Darwinian evolution. This means approximately synchronous changes in more than one component, so that modification to other components always occurs before the total modification to any one component has become significant. For example, in the evolution of the eye of Nautilus, and of the vertebrate eye if this passed through a Nautilus-like stage (Land & Fernald, 1992), it would be necessary for the evolution of the retina to be approximately synchronous with that of the pinhole eye. The retina is accessible via smallsteps from a single photosensitive cell, with increments of photosensitivity, and the pinhole eye is likewise accessible from a minor concavity, with incremental advantages initially in physical protection and then in focusing (Nilsson & Pelger, 1994). However, neither component would function without the other, and, furthermore, the retina would be exposed to damage if not enclosed.
...which seems pretty reasonable to me.