Weijie Tang1,2, Tingting Wu1, Jian Ye3, Juan Sun1, Yue Jiang1, Jun Yu1, Jianpeng Tang1, Gaoming Chen1, Chunming Wang4,5, Jianmin Wan1,6. 1. State Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Germplasm Enhancement, Nanjing Agricultural University, 210095, Nanjing, China. 2. Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center for Modern Crop Production, Nanjing, China. 3. State Key Laboratory of Plant Genomics, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100101, Beijing, China. 4. State Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Germplasm Enhancement, Nanjing Agricultural University, 210095, Nanjing, China. wangchm@njau.edu.cn. 5. Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center for Modern Crop Production, Nanjing, China. wangchm@njau.edu.cn. 6. National Key Facility for Crop Gene Resources and Genetic Improvement, Institute of Crop Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, 100081, China.
Unfortunately, the original version of this article [1] contained two errors within the text. On page 2 within the Background section the sentence: “Sasanishiki is a high-yielding indica cultivar” should have read: “Sasanishiki is an average-yielding japonica cultivar”.Also at the end of page 2 in the Results section the sentence: “Consistent with the phenotypical classification, the varieties from China, Guichao2, Nanjing11 and Nanjing35 were grouped into the indica type, together with IR36 and IR24 from IRRI; the varieties from Japan, Sasanishiki, Koshihikari, Habataki, and Asominori were grouped into japonica, together with USSR5 from Russia; the varieties N22 and Kasalath from India were grouped into aus.”should have read: “Consistent with the phenotype classification, the varieties from China, Guichao2 and Nanjing11 were grouped into the indica type, together with IR36 and IR24 from IRRI; the varieties from Japan, Sasanishiki, Koshihikari, and Asominori were grouped into japonica, together with USSR5 from Russia; the varieties N22 and Kasalath from India were grouped into aus.”