Erratum to: Tree Genetics & Genomes (2013) 9:1075–1088

DOI 10.1007/s11295-013-0622-z

Unfortunately, we had made an erroneous description in the Introduction, Results and discussion sections.

“The caprifig (hermaphroditic) type, the presumptive ancestral species, has male flowers and long-style female flowers, whereas the fig type (female) has only short-style female flowers.”

“To evaluate the validity of the extracted gene lists, we randomly selected 18 ESTs (ten caprifig-specific and seven common-specific) and investigated them by RT-PCR.”

These sentences should be read:

“The caprifig (hermaphroditic) type, the presumptive ancestral species, has male flowers and short-styled female flowers, whereas the fig type (female) has only long-styled female flowers.”

“To evaluate the validity of the extracted gene lists, we randomly selected 18 ESTs (ten caprifig-specific and eight common-specific) and investigated them by RT-PCR.”

In accordance with the latter correction, Supplemental Table 1 should be replaced with a new table (Attached file).