In our recent work on the description of the new species of Pristimantis (De Oliveira et al. 2017), some errors that can impair your complete understanding were not noticed in the text. Corrections are as follows:

Material and methods (pag. 102)

In the section Morphological analyzes where it is written “twenty-two belonging to type series” read “twenty-nine belonging to type series”.

Table 1 (p. 106)

Line 11 should be removed from the Table 1 because this sequence was not used.

Individuals “BIOTA 1218, BIOTA 1111, MPEG 095, MPEG 109, MPEG 160, MPEG 165 e MPEG 177” are not part of the type series.

Table 1 (p. 106 and 107)

In the Table 1, individuals belonging to the Borba 1 group are INPA-H 34565, 34579 and 34580, while those belonging to the Borba 2 group are INPA-H 34571, 34577, 34562, 34573, 34578 and 34575.

Bioacoustic analysis (p. 111)

In Figure 3C, the vocalization belongs to populations from Bolivia (Padial and De La Riva 2009). The oscillograms were retrieved from Padial and De La Riva (2009). José M. Padial is the author of figure 3B, Ignacio De La Riva is the author of figure 3C and J. Kohler is the author of figure 3D.

Paratopotypes (p. 113)

Where it is written “and nine adult females:” read “and eight adult females:”. Individual “LZATM 742” is mentioned twice, but it consists of only one.

Diagnosis (p. 114)

Where it is written “dorsolateral fold absent” read “dorsolateral fold present”.

Table 4 (p. 115)

Add “Obs: The (*) indicates description by Duellman and Lehr (2009) for Pristimantis fenestratus Peru and (**) indicates description by Padial and De La Riva (2009) for Pristimantis fenestratus Bolivia”.

Appendix 2 (pag. 129)

In the column locality, individuals from “Borba” should not be part of this table, since they do not belong to the taxon Pristimantis latro.

We thank Miqueias Ferrão for calling our attention to some of these problems.