Errata for:
Carol T. Zamfirescu
(2)-pancyclic graphs
Discrete Appl. Math. 161, Iss. 7–8 (2013) 1128–1136



Concerning the proof of Theorem 4, two remarks are in order.

The case of a chord not intersected by any other chord is missing. Let p 
be such a chord. There are two cycles using p and no other chord. 
Furthermore, for each chord q \ne p there is a cycle using p and q and no 
other chord. So we have c(p) \ge k + 1. 
By Lemma 1 there exist intersecting chords s and t. Now there certainly is 
a cycle using as chords p, s, and t, whence, c(p) \ge k + 2.

The statement "First of all, q halves G, and each half has as boundary a 
cycle containing q; hence, c(q) \le 2n - 6." is false. We use the 
following argument instead. q is not contained in C. Furthermore, G 
contains at least three chords q, s, and t. q is not contained in the
cycle having as chords only s and t. So c(q) \le 2n - 6. Now the proof
continues as published.



In the proof of Theorem 5, consider the situation \mu(G) = 5, see Fig 5.
In the case where two nonconsecutive x_i vanish, there are in fact three
4-cycles, not one as stated in the article. 



The above remarks do not change the validity of the statements. 
Unforunately, there is a fundamental problem in Theorem 6 and its 
Corollary. This will be addressed soon here.



My thanks go to Mr Matthias Kotz for pointing these out.