Bacigalupe, L. D. and Bozinovic, F. (2002). Design, limitations and sustained metabolic rate: lessons from small mammals. J. Exp. Boil. 205,2963-2970.
In both the on-line and print versions of this paper, the authors' address was printed incorrectly. The correct address is:
Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Ecologia & Biodiversidad,Departmento de Ecología, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, P. Universidad Católica de Chile, CP 6513677, Santiago, Chile
The first sentence of the third paragraph of the section `The central limitation hypothesis', p. 2964, should read:
Perhaps the main idea that has led to the proposal that energy budgets are centrally limited is the observed body mass-independent linkage between resting and sustained metabolic rates (RMR and SusMR, or Field Metabolic Rate)(Drent and Daan, 1980; Kirkwood, 1983; Weiner, 1989; Speakman, 2000).
The fourth sentence of the second paragraph of the section `The optimal design debate: Symmomorphis', p. 2965, should read:
In particular, Garland (1998) and Gordon (1998) point out reasons for refuting symmorphosis: (i) organisms must perform different functions simultaneously, which probably creates constraints that prevent them from reaching an optimal solution for all processes; (ii) biological materials have limitations related to their own histories; (iii) in general, environments are always changing, and natural selection often cannot follow the rhythm of change; and finally (iv) genetic drift can be an important factor in some populations.
We apologise for any inconvenience these errors may have caused.
