New Phytologist 171 (2006), 847–860
Since its publication, the authors of Yahr et al. (2006) have brought to our attention corrections that need to be made to the text of their article. In the Materials and Methods, subsection, Molecular methods an intron position in the RPB2 sequences has been misidentified. The text should read:
‘For these, we used newly designed primers (forward EF1α: CLEF-3F: 5′-GGC AAA GGC TCC TTC AAG T-3′; reverse EF1α: CLEF-3R: 5′-GCC AAT ACC ACC GAT CTT GT-3′; forward RBP2: CLRPB5F: 5′-CTG TTT CGA ACG CTG TTT CA-3′; reverse RBP2: CLRPB7R: 5′-CGC ATC CAC GTA TTC AAC AA-3′), with EF1α sequences containing an intron.’
In the Results (second and third paragraphs) GenBank accession numbers are printed incorrectly. The text should read:
In addition, for C. subtenuis we generated 33 EF1α and eight RPB2 sequences. EF1α sequences were 643 bp with nine variable positions and five parsimony-informative sites (GenBank accession nos DQ490091–DQ490105).’
We apologize to our readers for these mistakes.