Erratum

Abstract

EvolutionVolume 63, Issue 12 p. 3277-3277 Free Access Erratum This article corrects the following: THE ROLE OF POLLINATOR SHIFTS IN THE FLORAL DIVERSIFICATION OF IOCHROMA (SOLANACEAE) Stacey DeWitt Smith, Cécile Ané, David A. Baum, Volume 62Issue 4Evolution pages: 793-806 First Published online: January 15, 2008 MACROEVOLUTIONARY TESTS OF POLLINATION SYNDROMES: A REPLY TO FENSTER ET AL. Stacey DeWitt Smith, Cécile Ané, David A. Baum, Volume 63Issue 10Evolution pages: 2763-2767 First Published online: May 21, 2009 First published: 19 November 2009 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00829.xAboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Correction for Smith et al. (2008, 2009) Here, we correct the values for hue reported in Smith et al. (2008, 2009) and discuss their implications. In the 2008 article, hue was calculated for flowers from 15 Iochroma species using the formulas described in Endler (1990). Unfortunately, these formulas do not correctly specify the unique angle between 0 and 360° corresponding to hue. The new hue values given here were calculated with corrected formulas, which will be described in a forthcoming manuscript. The new values do not significantly alter the original interpretation of the results. The correct values for hue (Smith et al. 2008, Table 1, p. 798) are 20.42, 99.10, 10.51, 149.65, 136.96, 39.22, 15.47, 65.48, 65.58, 9.23, 84.41, 45.10, 20.74, 100.70, and 6.02, moving from the top row to the bottom. The revised mean quantitative convergence index (QVI) for hue is 0.71 with a 95% confidence interval across the sample of Bayesian trees of 0.64–0.79 (Smith et al. 2008, Table 1, p. 798). As in Smith et al. (2008), the observed QVI was not significantly different from the randomized QVI with the mean P-value being 0.23 and the confidence interval across trees of 0.09–0.45. Single (pairwise) and multiple correlations were estimated using the new hue values. In pairwise analyses, nonphylogenetic (TIPS) models remained the best fit and hue was again not significantly correlated with any group of pollinators (hummingbirds, r= 0.42; Hymenoptera, r=−0.32; Lepidoptera, r=−0.34; Diptera, r=−0.26). In multiple correlation analyses, the results for Lepidoptera and Diptera were unchanged as hue was not retained in the best-fitting models (Smith et al. 2008, Table 4, p. 800). However, hue was retained in multiple correlation analyses with hummingbird importance. With the best-fitting model, the partial correlation of hue with hummingbird importance was 0.48, much less than the partial correlations with reward (0.85) and display (0.67). Also, the multiple correlation analyses suggested that the best model for Hymenopteran importance comprises display, hue, and brightness with partial correlation coefficients of −0.51, −0.43 and −0.53, respectively. The retention of hue in multiple correlations, which was not significant in pairwise analyses, suggests that this variable has a weak effect, explaining some of the residual variation after the major effects of reward and display are taken into account. All other conclusions remain unaffected by the use of correct hue values. A revised version of Figure 1 showing hummingbird importance versus hue (Smith et al. 2009) is available as Supporting information (Fig. S1). Supporting Information Figure S1. Hummingbird importance versus corolla length and corrected hue values for 15 Iochroma species. The dots representing each species on the right are colored according to flower color by sampling the flower photographs in Smith et al. (2008). Please note: Wiley-Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting materials supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing material) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article. Filename Description EVO_829_sm_FigureS1.tif205 KB Supporting info item Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article. LITERATURE CITED Endler, J. A. 1990. On the measurement and classification of color in studies of animal color patterns. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 41: 315– 352. Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Smith, S. D., C. Ané, and D. A. Baum. 2008. The role of pollinator shifts in the floral diversification of Iochroma (Solanaceae). Evolution 62(4): 793– 806. Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Smith, S. D., C. Ané, and D. A. Baum. 2009. Macroevolutionary tests of pollination syndromes: A reply to Fenster et al. Evolution, 63(10): 2763– 2767. Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Volume63, Issue12December 2009Pages 3277-3277 ReferencesRelatedInformation