The erratum of the table of bighorn sheep population estimates for California (volume 14: 1565–1566) itself had errors. The 1994 estimate for the Orocopia Mts. should be 101–150 rather than> 250; the 1940 estimate for the San Ysidro Mountains should be 18 rather than 19; the 1979–1985 estimate for the Tierra Blanco Mts. should be “transient” rather than 0; the zero values for the Laguna Mts. (1979–1985), McCoy Mts. (1957), and Old Dad Mts. (1994) should be changed to blank (no estimate); the “70–72” data column heading should be 70–74; and the following reference should have been included as a source of those data: R. A. Weaver. 1975. Status of the bighorn sheep in California. Pages 58–64 in J. B. Trefethen, editor. The wild sheep in modern North America. Winchester Press, New York. We thank V. C. Bleich for bringing these errors to our attention.

In the April 2001 issue (Volume 15) of Conservation Biology the corrections R. H. Podolsky made on his page proofs were not incorporated by the assistant production editor (pp. 412–423). Substantive changes that should have been made were 1) p. 413, first column, fifth line up from the bottom: causing an should be can; 2) p. 417, first column, seventh and ninth lines up from the bottom: increased should be decreased (seventh line) and decreased should be increased (ninth line); and 3) p. 417, second column, seventh line up from the bottom: WS is white spot.

There is an error in the table of contents in the June 2001 (Volume 15) issue of Conservation Biology attributable to a typesetting problem. Five papers are listed as Reviews. However, only the paper by Welsh and Droege is actually a review. The papers by Davradou and Namkoong, and Noss, are actually Essays, and papers by Thibault and Blaney, and Hancock et al. are Conservation in Practice. Andayani et al. and DiMauro and Dietz are Research Notes, and the papers by Pearman and Young are Comments.