Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20190831. (Published online 10 July 2019) (doi:10.1098/rspb.2019.0831)
Since the publication of this manuscript, a number of minor errors have made themselves known, which do not, however, substantively alter our results or conclusions. During the construction of figure 5b, the terminal labels for Porifera and Ctenophora were erroneously switched. We here provide a corrected version of the figure with the proper labels, as in the original posterior consensus tree on which it is based (electronic supplementary material, figure S20). In the construction of the electronic supplementary material (ESM) figures, the cladogram given for electronic supplementary material, figure S7 (on which figure 2a,b was based) did not correspond to the posterior consensus summary conditions referred to in the figure caption. In the revised electronic supplementary material associated with this Correction, electronic supplementary material, figure S7 now contains the correct cladogram referred to by its caption. Elsewhere in the electronic supplementary material figure captions (for electronic supplementary material, figures S7–S9, S17 and S20), the posterior consensus summary conditions were misreported. We have now corrected these captions to reflect parameter values of PhyloBayes ‘bpcomp’ that reproduce the trees shown in each electronic supplementary material figure. In the original electronic supplementary material, we also signified that cDNA libraries annotated with ‘*’ were amplified via the phi29-mRNA amplification (PMA) method, conflicting with the use of this symbol described in the electronic supplementary material, table S1 caption to mark rogue taxa. We have removed this conflict; ‘*’ is now intended only to refer to rogue taxa. SRA metadata describe which libraries were amplified via PMA. An incorrect NCBI accession number for the ‘Pedicellina sp. FHL’ library also appeared in electronic supplementary material, table S1, which has now been replaced with the correct accession. Finally, an anomaly introduced by the journal's copy-editing process, and not caught at proof-reading, erroneously removed one author, Gert Wörheide, from the author list of references 11, 12, 16 and 29. The correct references are given below:
References
11. Pisani D, Pett W, Dohrmann M, Feuda R, Rota-Stabelli O, Philippe H, Lartillot N, Wörheide G. 2015 Genomic data do not support comb jellies as the sister group to all other animals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 15402–15407. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1518127112)
12. Feuda R, Dohrmann M, Pett W, Philippe H, Rota-Stabelli O, Lartillot N, Wörheide G, Pisani D. 2017 Improved modeling of compositional heterogeneity supports sponges as sister to all other animals. Curr. Biol. 27, 3864–3870. (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.11.008)
16. Pett W, Adamski M, Adamska M, Francis WR, Eitel M, Pisani D, Wörheide G. 2019 The role of homology and orthology in the phylogenomic analysis of metazoan gene content. Mol. Biol. Evol. 36, 643–649. (doi:10.1093/molbev/msz013)
29. Philippe H, Brinkmann H, Lavrov DV, Littlewood DTJ, Manuel M, Wörheide G, Baurain D. 2011 Resolving difficult phylogenetic questions: why more sequences are not enough. PLoS Biol. 9, e1000602. (doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000602)
Supplementary Material
We acknowledge Gert Wörheide and Davide Pisani for bringing several of these issues to our attention.
Figure 5.
Cladograms depicting metazoan relationships outside Bilateria, summarizing relationships from CAT + GTR + Γ4 analysis of the non-Bilateria specific matrix, varied as follows: (a) amino acid matrix with all sampled opisthokont outgroups; (b) the same, recoded into Dayhoff-6 groups; (c) amino acid matrix including only Choanoflagellata as outgroups; (d) the same, recoded into Dayhoff-6 groups. On the matrix pruned of non-choanoflagellate outgroups, BMGE-trimming was performed after pruning, yielding a matrix of 68 337 sites, in contrast to the 61 096 sites retained when all outgroups are included prior to trimming. Trees have been arbitrarily drawn with the root between Apusomonadida and Opisthokonta. (Online version in colour.)
References
- 11.Pisani D, Pett W, Dohrmann M, Feuda R, Rota-Stabelli O, Philippe H, Lartillot N, Wörheide G. 2015. Genomic data do not support comb jellies as the sister group to all other animals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 15402–15407. ( 10.1073/pnas.1518127112) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Feuda R, Dohrmann M, Pett W, Philippe H, Rota-Stabelli O, Lartillot N, Wörheide G, Pisani D. 2017. Improved modeling of compositional heterogeneity supports sponges as sister to all other animals. Curr. Biol. 27, 3864–3870. ( 10.1016/j.cub.2017.11.008) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Pett W, Adamski M, Adamska M, Francis WR, Eitel M, Pisani D, Wörheide G. 2019. The role of homology and orthology in the phylogenomic analysis of metazoan gene content. Mol. Biol. Evol. 36, 643–649. ( 10.1093/molbev/msz013) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Philippe H, Brinkmann H, Lavrov DV, Littlewood DTJ, Manuel M, Wörheide G, Baurain D. 2011. Resolving difficult phylogenetic questions: why more sequences are not enough. PLoS Biol. 9, e1000602 ( 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000602) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

