There are errors in Fig 3, Fig 4 and Fig 5. The authors have provided corrected versions here.
Fig 3. Taxonomic classification [9], life form, chromosomal properties and genome size [38] of diploid and tetraploid Phalaris species on a ITS phylogram based on Bayesian inference [8].
Parsimony bootstrap values and Bayesian support are noted above and below the branches.
Fig 4. Possible scenario of reductional dysploidy in the genus Phalaris.

A: Chromosome prototypes (proto) of a fictive ancestral x = 7 genome A karyotype numbered according to the ideograms of P. brachystachys and P. canariensis in Fig 2; B: Pericentromeric break in proto-A7, end-to-end fusion with proto-A2 and proto-A6 and loss of centromere; C: Paracentric inversion of fused arms; D: Reductional dysploidy to an extant x = 6 karyotype with strong asymmetric chromosomes. m—metacentric, sm/st—submetacentric/subtelocentric.
Fig 6. Geographical distribution of different genomes A, B, and C in eight species of Phalaris and possible expansions routes and time of diversification within the genus according to Voshell & Hilu [10].
Reference
- 1.Winterfeld G, Becher H, Voshell S, Hilu K, Röser M (2018) Karyotype evolution in Phalaris (Poaceae): The role of reductional dysploidy, polyploidy and chromosome alteration in a wide-spread and diverse genus. PLoS ONE 13(2): e0192869 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192869 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]


