Correction to Cold and Dark Captivity: Drivers of Amphibian Longevity

The authors were alerted to inaccuracies in the originally published article in some of the body mass data points for amphibians in the database used to prepare and write the article, prompting an immediate reassessment of the entire dataset.Upon reviewing the published dataset, which spans 527 amphibian species (available at https:// doi.org/ 10. 1111/ geb.12804 ), the authors discovered that the body mass values they relied upon were incorrect.Furthermore, they were informed that the maximum lifespans and the literature references used for two of the 527 species were of questionable quality.After evaluating these concerns, the authors identified the following issues:1. Body size issue: In applying the allometric equations from Santini et al. (2018) to convert lengths to masses using the species' SVL, the authors mistakenly used total length for urodele species, although these equations are intended for snout-vent lengths.This error resulted in inflated body mass estimates for all urodele species in the dataset (n = 156).Additionally, for Anura, the authors occasionally applied the incorrect equations based on habitat use, as the conversion equations vary between species inhabiting different environments.For instance, the authors incorrectly calculated masses for some terrestrial species using equations designated for aquatic species and vice versa.To ensure the accuracy of the body length data, the authors decided to use the latest (2025) version of the Global Amphibian Biodiversity Project (GABiP) dataset (Pincheira-Donoso 2017), which includes body lengths for over 7,000 amphibian species.The authors thus replaced all their original length data (mean SVL) with more reliable, maximum SVL values from the GABiP dataset.From these new SVL data, the authors calculated masses using the allometric equations proposed by Santini et al. (2018).The authors used maximum SVL because these data are available for all species, whereas mean SVL data are available for less than half of the dataset.Furthermore, using maximum values is advantageous because they capture maximum potential size, competitive abilities, and ecological roles of individuals, all of which significantly influence survival and reproductive success.Furthermore, as amphibians mostly grow throughout their lives, using SVL maxima is more in line with the maximum longevity data the authors use.2. Lifespan data issue: Out of more than 500 amphibian species, two species were found to have problematic lifespan estimates: Andrias japonicus and Andrias davidianus, which the authors originally obtained from websites where the reliability is not ensured.For these two species, the authors replaced the maximum longevity records they used in their original publications with ones reported in a published article (Browne et al. 2014) for Andrias japonicus and from AnimalDiversity (https:// anima ldive rsity.org/ accou nts/ Andri as_ david ianus/ ) for Andrias davidianus, changing the lifespans from 70 and 200 to 72 and 60 years, respectively.After the authors changed all the mass data and the two longevity data points, they re-ran all analyses using the new dataset.The authors found similar results and patterns to the original results in their paper (see corrected tables and figures below).Indeed, if anything, patterns and results are somewhat stronger now than in their published, problematic analyses (the new analyses have steeper slopes for body size and higher model R 2 values).We apologize for these errors.Corrected amphibian longevity results.