Errata Clarifications concerning my paper "Cross Wavelet Analysis. Significance Testing and Pitfalls" The approximative formula for WCO95: The formula is only valid for nvoice approx. 33 scale values per octave (200 values for 6 octaves, see caption of Fig. 3). This value is unnecessarily high. For other values of nvoice the values for the smoothing window length should be rescaled (e.g. for nvoice=20: a chosen w=10 means inserting w=16.7 into the formula). This is already accounted for in my software package. The Monte Carlo simulations: The dependency of the critical values on the two processes under investigation is very weak (e.g. 2% difference between white noise and an almost nonstationary AR1-process). Thus the approximative formula may be utilized in all cases and no Monte Carlo simulations are necessary. Spurious Peaks: I stated, that patches, significant on a 95% level, covering more than 5% of the total area, might be considered as being significant. In fact, this is right, but a bit more complicated: The measure defining the area of a patch depends on scale. In other words, a naivly spoken "large" patch on a high scale might be smaller in relation to the measure as a "smaller" patch on a lower scale. This is the basic idea for my areawise significance test. However, when weighting every area with the scale dependent measure, the 5% rule is correct again.