Here, we correct several analytical and clerical errors in our paper titled “Phylogeography of a widespread eastern North American shrub, Viburnum lantanoides ”.

An error in our sequence handling pipeline caused the SNP dataset used in our population genetic and demographic analyses to retain a non‐negligible number of sites that did not conform to the SNP filtering procedure described in our paper (i.e., bi‐allelic SNPs with >50% sample coverage and MAF > 0.01). To address this, we generated a new, properly filtered SNP dataset and repeated these analyses. The revised population genetic analyses agree with those reported previously and do not change the conclusions of our study. We have updated Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 [see note below], Appendix S4, Appendix S5, and the relevant text accordingly. The revised demographic analyses do, however, differ from those reported previously. These differences are primarily due to a conversion error, in which our previous estimates of the reference population sizes (Nref) were incorrectly converted from theta by a factor of 4. The revised population sizes are slightly smaller than our previous estimates, but continue to support much larger population sizes in the southern cluster compared to the northern lineage. However, revised divergence times are shifted forward from ~40,000 to 20,000 ybp. As divergence time estimates were not critical to our conclusions, the updated results do not alter our interpretation of the demographic history of V. lantanoides . We have updated Table 1 and the affected text accordingly.

Finally, we have taken this opportunity to correct two clerical errors. In Figure 1A, the correlation coefficient (r) was incorrectly reported as a coefficient of determination (R²). In Appendix S1, the number of sampled populations was incorrectly reported as 69 rather than the correct number of 70. We have updated Figure 1A, Appendix S1, and the relevant text accordingly.

[Note: Figure 3 (the population phylogeny which is not affected by any of the SNP filtering issues) is also revised to reflect the changes to Appendix S1 (locality data for the populations sampled) and the updated ancestry inferences from the new SNP dataset.

在这里，我们在题为《北美东部东部灌木荚Vi荚Vi的植物志》的论文中纠正了一些分析和笔误 。

我们的序列处理流程中出现错误，导致在我们的群体遗传和人口统计分析中使用的SNP数据集保留了数量不可忽略的不符合本文中描述的SNP筛选程序的位点（即，等位基因双SNP> 50％的样品覆盖率和MAF> 0.01）。为了解决这个问题，我们生成了一个经过适当过滤的新SNP数据集，并重复了这些分析。修订后的种群遗传分析与先前报道的一致，并且不会改变我们研究的结论。我们更新了图1，图2，图3 [请参见下面的注释]，附录S4，附录S5和相应的文本。但是，修订后的人口统计分析确实与先前报道的有所不同。这些差异主要是由于转换错误，其中我们先前对参考人口规模（Nref）的估计被错误地从theta转换了4倍。修订后的人口规模比我们先前的估计略小，但与北部血统。但是，修改后的发散时间从40,000 ybp转移到20,000 ybp。由于时间差异估计对我们的结论并不重要，因此更新后的结果不会改变我们对人口统计历史的解释 修改后的发散时间从40,000 ybp转移到20,000 ybp。由于时间差异估计对我们的结论并不重要，因此更新后的结果不会改变我们对人口统计历史的解释 修改后的发散时间从40,000 ybp转移到20,000 ybp。由于时间差异估计对我们的结论并不重要，因此更新后的结果不会改变我们对人口统计历史的解释 V. lantanoides。我们已经更新了表1和相应的受影响的文本。

最后，我们借此机会纠正了两个笔误。在图1A中，相关系数（r）被错误地报告为确定系数（R ²）。在附录S1中，抽样人口数错误地报告为69，而不是正确的70。我们更新了图1A，附录S1和相关文本。

[注意：图3（不受任何SNP过滤问题影响的种群系统发育也进行了修订，以反映对附录S1（抽样人群的位置数据）的更改以及来自新SNP数据集的更新祖先推论。