Figures 1 and 2 in the above manuscript did not print correctly; the proper figures are below. Additionally, the captions for Figs. 6 and 7 have been switched; the figure on the upper right of p. 502 should properly be labeled Fig. 6, and the figure on the lower left of p. 502 should properly be labeled Fig. 7. In addition, the original references to Figs. 9a and 9b in the text (p. 503) are switched. The second line in the third paragraph of the “Discussion” should begin “Figure 9b shows a contour plot of $e11…;$” the fourth line of the same paragraph should begin “In contrast, Fig. 9a shows a plot of $e22….$” All other references to Fig. 9 in the text and in the figure caption are correct.

Finally, analysis of indentation of linear materials used moduli on the order of MPa, not GPa, as I incorrectly reported in the text. For example, Eq. (6) on p. 499 gives the stiffness matrix in GPa, but the units should be MPa; this correction applies to all analyses of linear orthotropic materials. These parameters are thus not consistent with those of bone as reported in Ref. [20]. Use of true bone parameters results in load data that are several orders of magnitude higher than the load data currently presented (Figs. 4–6), but qualitatively the results are similar and discussion of the results still applies.