1

. “Most of the worlds we have found seem unlikely to support life [simply because of temperatures].” Adam Frank, “How Nature Builds a Planet,” Discover, Vol. 26, July 2005, p. 30.

2

. “Dangers of Publication by Press Conference,” Nature, Vol. 393, 4 June 1998, p. 397.

3

. Ron Cowen, “The Planet That Isn’t,” Science News, Vol. 157, 22 April 2000, p. 271.

Susan Terebey et al., “The Spectrum of TMR-1C Is Consistent with a Background Star,” The Astronomical Journal, Vol. 19, May 2000, pp. 2341–2348.

4

. L. F. Miranda et al., “Water-Maser Emission from a Planetary Nebula with a Magnetic Torus,” Nature, Vol. 414, 15 November 2001, pp. 284–286.

5

. “Finally, it is possible that regardless of how many and where planets form, the dynamical perturbations experienced over the history of the cluster would be too disruptive to allow the survival of any planets ...”  Steinn Sigurdsson et al., “A Young White Dwarf Companion to Pulsar B1620-26: Evidence for Early Planet Formation,” Science, Vol. 301, 11 July 2003, p. 195.

“The discovery of a giant planet amid a cluster of primitive stars is challenging one of astronomers’ pet notions. ... [The planet would have to have been] born billions of years before most astrophysicists thought the universe had spawned the raw materials needed to make them.” Robert Irion, “Ancient Planet Turns Back the Clock,” Science, Vol. 301, 11 July 2003, p. 151.

6

. Ron Cowen, “One Star Better Than Two?” Science News, Vol. 169, 21 January 2006, p. 46.

7

. Maciej Konacki, “An Extrasolar Giant Planet in a Close Triple-Star System,” Nature, Vol. 436, 14 July 2005, pp. 230–233.

“The discovery by Maciej Konacki of a giant planet in a system where the gravitational pull of a second star would disturb the planet’s putative nursery will now place severe constraints on such [evolutionary] theories.” Artie P. Hatzes and Günther Wuchterl, “Giant Planet Seeks Nursery Place,” Nature, Vol. 436, 14 July 2005, p. 182.

“In July [2005] Caltech planetary scientist Maciej Konacki turned up a world with three suns in the constellation Cygnus. Finding that a planet could exist in a multiple-star system counter to theoretical expectations, ‘will put our theories of planet formation to a strict test,’ says Konacki.” Jack Kelley, “Hunt for Another Earth Broadens,” Discover, Vol. 27, January 2006, p. 26.

8

. M. R. Zapatero Osorio et al., “Discovery of Young, Isolated Planetary Mass Objects in the s Orionis Star Cluster,” Science, Vol. 290, 6 October 2000, pp. 103–107.

9

. John E. Gizis, “Brown Dwarfs,” Science, Vol. 294, 26 October 2001, pp. 801–802.

10

. Instead of gaining mass, as any evolving planet must do, one extrasolar planet is so close to its star that it is losing at least 10,000 metric tons of hydrogen a second. (The rate of loss may be several orders of magnitude greater.)  See A. Vidal-Madjar et al., “An Extended Upper Atmosphere Around the Extrasolar Planet HD209458b,” Nature, Vol. 422, 13 March 2003, pp. 143–146.

11

. “More of these ‘hot Jupiters’ (orbiting within a tenth of the Earth-Sun distance) were soon found, making it clear that the principles underlying the formation of planetary systems needed some revision.”  Gibor Basri, “Too Close for Comfort,” Nature, Vol. 430, 1 July 2004, p. 24.

12

. “With so little in common with the familiar Solar System planets, these newcomers spell the end for established theories of planet formation.” Dan Falk, “Planet Formation,” Nature, Vol. 422, 17 April 2003, p. ix.

“Extrasolar planets have peculiar properties, and our understanding of how planets form, which was incomplete even before the new data became available, now looks even shakier.”  Dan Falk, “Worlds Apart,” Nature, Vol. 422, 17 April 2003, p. 659.

“[Planets] form through processes that do not clearly fit into any of the standard theoretical models.” Frank, p. 30.