In Gavin Stark et al. (2020), the authors would like to notify the readers that in the original published version of the article, It has several supplemental tables and figures are missed and published.

We have found that parts of the dataset we recently used in preparing and writing this article were incorrect. This has prompted our immediate reassessment of the entire database. Consequently, we went over the published database (spanning 4,100 tetrapod species) and found multiple errors in our original data with regards to the estimation of the sample sizes. These errors prevailed in the dataset as a whole (i.e., the sample sizes we used were often not found in the original sources or other numbers used instead of the correct ones). Further systematic errors were found in three fundamental parts: First, we found that the dataset we used (and published online) included incorrect values for sample sizes produced by AnAge, that were incongruent with our stated methods (see in methods, P.3). Second, we inconsistently tallied sample sizes from capture-recapture studies where usually several values of sample sizes are available (at first, second and subsequent captures). Third, we realized that we wrongly ascribed data that originated in AnAge to Young et al. (2012), and that we missed data on additional 95 species existing in Young et al. (2012).

We have now rectified all these issues in the following ways: 1. We manually checked our data to make sure sample sizes are now correct. 2. We now made sure to treat sample size in accordance with the ways stated in the methods section throughout (e.g., ‘small samples’ in AnAge we coded as one individual instead of 11). 3. We now consider the number of specimens in capture-recapture studies as the number of individuals recaptured at the first recapture attempt as the relevant sample size. 4. We now incorporated these 95 extra species into the database and models. We also standardized the way we tallied sample size in general, and for capture-recapture studies in particular. The corrected dataset is available in the revised Appendix S1 in Supporting Information. Due to these errors, we re-run all our analyses with the updated dataset (n = 4,195).

The PGLS model for the relationship between metabolic rates (MR) and longevity among and within tetrapod classes (Table 1) remained qualitatively similar, with the exception of a non-significant effect (p = .07) of FMR on reptilian longevity, as opposed to the original model where this relationship was significant (p = .0007), and a marginal effect (p = .03) of MR on amphibian longevity, where this relationship was non-significant (p = .09). See the new Appendix S2.1 for the full details of the new figure. Similarly, the Full PGLS model for all the Tetrapoda classes together (Table 2) remained qualitatively similar to the original one, with the exception of temperature seasonality we now found is negatively associated with longevity (p = .0005) as opposed to the original analysis, where it had no relationship (p = .40). The rest of the models for each class produce qualitatively similar results, with the exception of birds that had also a marginal negative effect (p = .01) of temperature seasonality on their longevity, as opposed to the original model, where this variable was insignificant (p = .97). See the new Appendix S2.2 for the full details of the new models. The revised sensitivity analysis, similar to the original one, revealed no substantial differences in the overall results (Appendix S2.3). Moreover, the additional factors examined (body size, sample size, data origin, and phylogeny) included in the analysis for each class did not change in the direction or significance of their associations with longevity. See the new Appendix 3.

Correcting our errors generally increased the explanatory power of some models, resulted in no fundamental change in any of our analyses (i.e., results are almost invariably qualitatively the same), and further support our conclusion that the relationship between metabolic rate and longevity does not hold when examined among and within tetrapod classes.

The author would like to apologize for this error.

在加文斯塔克等人。（2020），作者想通知读者，在文章的原始出版版本中，它有几个补充表格和数字被遗漏和出版。

我们发现我们最近在准备和撰写本文时使用的部分数据集是不正确的。这促使我们立即重新评估整个数据库。因此，我们查看了已发布的数据库（涵盖 4,100 种四足动物），并在我们的原始数据中发现了关于样本大小估计的多个错误。这些错误在整个数据集中普遍存在（即，我们使用的样本大小通常在原始来源或其他使用的数字中找不到，而不是正确的数字）。在三个基本部分发现了进一步的系统错误：首先，我们发现我们使用（并在线发布）的数据集包含 AnAge 生成的样本大小的不正确值，这与我们所述的方法不一致（参见方法，P.3） . 第二，我们不一致地统计了捕获-再捕获研究中的样本量，其中通常有几个可用的样本量值（在第一次、第二次和后续捕获时）。第三，我们意识到我们错误地将源自 AnAge 的数据归因于 Young 等人。（2012），并且我们错过了 Young 等人中存在的另外 95 个物种的数据。(2012)。

我们现在已经通过以下方式纠正了所有这些问题： 1. 我们手动检查了我们的数据以确保样本量现在是正确的。2. 我们现在确保按照方法部分所述的方式处理样本量（例如，在 AnAge 中，我们将“小样本”编码为一个个体而不是 11 个个体）。3. 我们现在将捕获-再捕获研究中的样本数量视为在第一次再捕获尝试中重新捕获的个体数量作为相关样本量。4. 我们现在将这 95 个额外物种合并到数据库和模型中。我们还标准化了我们统计样本量的一般方式，特别是捕获-再捕获研究。修正后的数据集可在支持信息中修订的附录 S1 中找到。由于这些错误，我们使用更新的数据集重新运行所有分析（n  = 4,195）。

除了 FMR 对爬行动物寿命的非显着影响 ( p = .07)之外，四足类动物之间和内部的代谢率 (MR) 与寿命之间的关系的 PGLS 模型（表 1）在性质上保持相似。这种关系显着 ( p  = .0007) 和 MR 对两栖动物寿命的边际效应 ( p = .03)的原始模型，其中这种关系不显着 ( p = .09）。有关新图的完整详细信息，请参阅新的附录 S2.1。同样，所有四足类的完整 PGLS 模型（表 2）在性质上与原始模型相似，除了我们现在发现的温度季节性与寿命呈负相关（p  = .0005），这与原始分析相反，它没有关系（p  = .40）。每个类别的其余模型产生质量相似的结果，除了鸟类之外， 温度季节性对其寿命也有边际负面影响 ( p = .01)，而原始模型则相反，原始模型中该变量不显着( p = .97）。有关新模型的完整详细信息，请参阅新的附录 S2.2。修订后的敏感性分析与原始分析相似，总体结果没有显着差异（附录 S2.3）。此外，每个类别的分析中包含的其他因素（身体大小、样本大小、数据来源和系统发育）在它们与长寿关联的方向或重要性方面没有变化。请参阅新的附录 3。

纠正我们的错误通常会增加一些模型的解释力，导致我们的任何分析都没有根本变化（即，结果几乎总是在定性上相同），并进一步支持我们的结论，即代谢率和寿命之间的关系不成立在四足类之间和内部进行检查时。

作者想为这个错误道歉。