8 Regarding the well-faceted and atomically smooth crystal surfaces which may have an infinitely large surface stiffness, we can make the following remarks. The large value of surface stiffness γ is a factor, first, for nonzero wave vectors q , which prevents the development of the Taylor instability. The most distinctive feature of the smooth crystal surface from the rough one is the exis- tence of a non-analytic cusp-like behavior in the angle dependence for the surface tension, e.g., [9, 10]. The presence of a singularity leads to qualitative distinctions in the development of instabilities [16]. First and fore- most, the threshold magnitude and the conditions deter- mining the development of the Taylor instability prove to be dependent on the initial amplitude of the interfa- cial perturbation. The smaller the initial perturbation amplitude, the larger the necessary threshold magnitude of acceleration, approximately as 1 /ζ$_{q}$ (0). We note here that the onset of the Taylor instability is favored at the vicinal surfaces whose orientations are tilted by a small angle with respect to the high-symmetry faceted ones. The larger the slope of the vicinal plane, the smaller the initial amplitude of interfacial perturbations is required for the development of the instability at the same mag- nitudes of acceleration. The constant acceleration of an interface works like an effective gravity. Hence, the physical picture for the Taylor case of constant acceleration is analogous to the gravity-driven fingering of a crystal atop a fluid and can qualitatively be interpreted in terms of an effective amplitude-dependent stiffness γ ∼ 1 /qζ$_{q}$ [16]. For suffi- ciently large perturbation amplitudes ζ$_{q}$ , the difference between the cases of smooth and rough crystal surfaces disappears. In the case of impulusively accelerated smooth inter- face, the very initial stage of instability will be similar to that of a rough surface with the perturbation am- plitude increasing linearly in time. Insensitivity to the surface state results from the fact that the inertial prop- erties of the interface, associated with its effective den- sity, are mainly responsible for a linear response on in- stant loading. However, the specific time when the lin- ear time growth of perturbations breaks down becomes amplitude-dependent for the smooth surfaces and shorter as compared to the rough surfaces. Experimental and theoretical study of these effects can be useful for clarifying physical aspects of the crystal $^{4}$He growth under high drives and fast dynamics. We wish to acknowledge gratefully the helpful sugges- tions of R. Barankov and assistance from R. Hipolito. The work is supported by the RFBR Grant No. 08-02- 00752a. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ∗ burmi@kurm.polyn.kiae.su [1] G. I. Taylor, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A201 , 192 (1950). [2] S. Chandrasekhar, Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic stability , (Oxford Universiy Press, Oxford, 1961). [3] D. H. Sharp, Physica D 12 , 3 (1984). [4] H. Abe, T. Ueda, M. Morikawa, Y. Saitoh, R. Nomura, and Y. Okuda, Phys. Rev. E 76 , 046305 (2007). [5] H. Kim, K. Seo, B. Tabbert, and G. A. Williams, Euro- phys. Lett. 58 , 395 (2002). [6] H. Kim, P. A. Lemieux, D. J. Durian, and G. A. Williams, Phys. Rev. E 69 , 061408 (2004). [7] P. Leiderer, J. Low Temp. Phys. 87 , 247 (1992). [8] R. Blaauwgeers, V. B. Eltsov, G. Eska, A. P. Finne, R. P. Haley, M. Krusius, J. J. Ruohio, L. Skrebek, and G. E. Volovik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 , 155301 (2002) [9] S. Balibar, H. Alles, and A. Ya. Parshin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77 , 317 (2005). [10] P. Nozi`erez, in: Solids far from Equilibrium , ed. by C. Godr`eche (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992), p.24; S. Balibar, D. O. Edwards, and W. F. Saam, J. Low Temp. Phys. 82 , 119 (1991). [11] M. Yu. Kagan, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 90 , 498 (1986) [Sov. Phys. JETP 63 , 288 (1986)]. [12] P. Nozi`eres and M. Uwaha, J. de Physique 47 , 263 (1986). [13] L. A. Maksimov and V. L. Tsymbalenko, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 122 , 530 (2002) [JETP 95 , 455 (2002)]. [14] C. D. Demaria, J. W. Lewellen, and A. J. Dahm, J. Low Temp. Phys. 89 , 385 (1992). [15] V. L. Tsymbalenko, Fiz. Nizk. Temp. 21 , 162 (1995) [Low Temp. Phys. 21 , 120 (1995)]. [16] S. N. Burmistrov and L. B. Dubovskii, J. Low Temp. Phys. 150 , 295 (2008). [17] H. Abe, T. Ueda. M. Morikawa, Yu Saitoh, R. Nomura, and Y. Okuda, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 92 , 012157 (2007). [18] W. van Saarloos and J. D. Weeks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 , 290 (1995). [19] V. L. Tsymbalenko, J. Low Temp. Phys. 121 , 53 (2000). [20] V. L. Tsymbalenko, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 126 , 1391 (2004) [JETP 99 , 1214 (2004)]. [21] S. N. Burmistrov and T. Satoh, Phys. Rev. B 59 , 161 (1999) [22] V. L. Tsymbalenko, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 119 , 1182 (2001) [JETP 92 , 1024 (2001)]. [23] E. E. Meshkov, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR (Mekh. Zhidk. i Gaza) 5 , 151 (1969) [NASA Technical Translation F-13 , 074 (1970)]. [24] B. Castaing and P. Nozi`erez, J. de Physique 41 , 701 (1980). [25] R. M. Bowley and D. O. Edwards, J. de Physique 44 , 723 (1983). [26] A. F. Andreev, V. G. Knizhnik, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 83 , 416 (1982) [Sov. Phys. JETP 56 , 226 (1982)]. [27] M. Uwaha and G. Baym, Phys. Rev. 26 , 4928 (1982). [28] L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshits, Fluid Mechanics , (Perg- amon Press, 1987), § 140. [29] Y. Yang, Q. Zhang, and D. H. Sharp, Phys. Fluids 6 , 1856 (1994). [30] R. Nomura, S. Kimura, F. Ogasawara, H. Abe, and Y. Okuda, Phys. Rev. B 70 , 054516 (2004). [31] R. Ishiguro, F. Caupin, and S. Balibar, Europhys. Lett. 75 , 91 (2006).