p. 459, Figure 11.8. The "slanted motion" cannot be due to the inclination of Enceladus (i=0.02 degrees) which moves that satellite up and down by only 1/3 of its own radius. Perhaps Mimas and Enceladus have been confused?
p. 469, text after Eq. 11.18a. The statement about mz being even for horizontal forcing and odd for vertical forcing is only true for Lindblad and Vertical resonances (as defined here) which are a subset of all possible resonances. The correct statement is that mz + m'z is always even (vertical frequencies must come in pairs), where m'z is the coefficient of μ on the right hand side of 11.18b, 11.18c, or their generalization.
p. 477, last paragraph. "Pan also excites eccentricity of ring particles ..." eccentricity -> eccentricities.
p. 479, full paragraph before Eq. 11.26. "... such eccentricities greatly reduce the chances that particle recollide with the parent moon ...". They do not. While the collision probability is a steep function of inclination, it is nearly independent of eccentricity - see Hamilton and Burns (1994).
p. 480, text just before Eq. 11.30. "Thebe ring may have formed from plasma drag on some of the Thebe ejecta." No - why would plasma drag cause some particles to go out while others go in? The mechanism of Hamilton and Krueger (2008) is, in my opinion, a far more natural explanation.
p. 480, text just after Eq. 11.30. "The Lorentz force couples charged dust grains to the magnetic field and hence reinforces plasma drag." What does this mean? For jovian ring particles, the Lorentz force is many orders of magnitude stronger than plasma drag, not merely "reinforcing". Furthermore, the Lorentz force is not a drag force. Finally the Lorentz force is primarily radial while plasma drag is azimuthal. Why are these very different forces compared at all?
p. 505, Figure 12.21. "Error bars for the points" discussed in the caption are not visible in the data.
p. 505, Table 12.1. In the comment for superscript a, the final M should be an MEarth.
p. 505, bottom of first paragraph. "This is in contrast to our Solar System" (discussion of overstability). Is this fair? Of course the orbital periods of exoplanets are more widely separated than that of Solar System planets - they have large eccentricities and hence must be more widely spaced!
p. 505, bottom of left column. "is intermediate of between those Saturn and ..." -> is intermediate between those of Saturn and
p. 509, top of second column. 107 - 1010 looks more like 106 - 1010 from the figure.
p. 520, last paragraph. Although Beta Pictoris is a main sequence star, the wording here seems to imply it is older. Beta Pictoris is a main sequence star, but at ~12 Myrs old it is a very young main sequence star. Perhaps change "main sequence" -> young main sequence. Credit: Jessica Donaldson.
Last Updated: Dec. 31, 2012