My information sources are the following:
I have not taken the following exoplanets into my database:
- exoplanets that do not have any coordinates (these are ‘anonymous’and ‘candidates’)
- exoplanets that were retracted by the original researchers. Retracted exoplanets are from a completely different category that unconfirmed or controversial exoplanets. It seems very odd to me to put these in one list together.
2) Kepler candidates Kepler archive
Please be aware that a record in my database can include an Kepler Identification Catalogue (KIC) number but you may not find in the Kepler catalogues as it was not part of the original target list of the Kepler team. In that case the Kepler measurements were investigated by other teams.
Kepler candidates that are confirmed are given the Kepler-XX designation. The as yet unresearched Kepler candidates have the attribute ‘unconfirmed‘ in my list. Please note that there are a few Kepler candidates that have the status ‘confirmed’ because they were investigated by other astronomers than the ones from the Kepler team.
3) Centre de Donnees Stellaires CDS
This central astronomical database system usually has very good data to retrieve but not in this case. Because there never was a system to name exoplanets, the data for those have been entered in very changing ways in the CDS: Sometimes you will find just a note about a ‘substellar”companion, sometimes the exoplanet gets a own record in the system. If you want to find a list of all possible exoplanets in the CDS you need to use otype=PL? as a query.
Not added to my database are 5 planets that I call ‘phantom’planets. These are exoplanets that were reported by professional astronomers in a certain publication but no one else has reported any actual observations of them. These are probably administrative errors and not real exoplanets. This concerns: HD 127506, HD 199263 (typo for HD 192263?), HD 209452 (typo for HD 209458?), HD 223084, GJ893. All the authors of these publications were emailed by me with a request for clarification. Only the author that had mixed up eps and ups And reported his error. The rest never answered my emails.
4) Exoplanets discovered/observed by amateur astronomers (this part of the database still needs to be done). Just think of the spectacular observation of TreS-1 in 2004 by Tonny Vanmunster. In the Czech republic there is an active group that observes exoplanets but they do not have independent discoveries as far as I could see. This is TRESCA from the Czech Astronomical Society TRESCA
And then there is the AAVSO variable star index AAVSO
. That also needs to be checked.
5) Newly reported exoplanets in Arxiv publications, see arxiv
Two main articles have been added to this database, the list of Huang et. al (arXiv:1205.6492) and the list published by Planethunters in arxiv1301.0644 (see Planethunters
) but there are more.
6) Variable stars with the status Ep (total 6) or Ep: (total 34) from the General Catalogue of Variable Stars
(including the namelists) have been added as well.
7) Please note that using these different information sources will lead inevitably to contradictions and information conflicts. I may have solved some of them but for sure not all.