TEPCat: objects not included


 

Home

Catalogue

News


F.A.Q.

Where is …

Bibliography

Units and quantities

Physical constants


How many transiting planets are known?

Plots

Links

Contact me

What happened to some transiting objects which are not listed in TEPCat?

A number of known transiting planetary systems are not listed in TEPCat. Reasons for this include duplicate names (e.g. WASP-11 is the same as HAT-P-10), unproven planetary nature (e.g. Lupus-TR-3), or lack of a refereed publication giving a detailed study. Here is a list and a short explanation for each:

EPIC 201505350
This object was renamed as K2-19 by the Kepler team (see this page)
EPIC 206011691
This object was renamed as K2-21 by the Kepler team (see this page)
HAT-P-10
HAT-P-10 is the same object as WASP-11, and the two consortia announced their discoveries almost simultaneously. The discovery paper of WASP-11 was submitted to the MNRAS journal a week before the discovery paper of HAT-P-10 was submitted to ApJ. Confusion arose because the HAT paper was lodged on arXiv before the WASP paper was. The two groups agreed to label the system as "WASP-11/HAT-P-10". This is not a formal agreement and other people are free to choose their preferred name. I opt for WASP-11, for ease and because the WASP discovery paper was submitted earlier.
HD 147506
This is HAT-P-2. The discovery paper used the name HD 147506 in the title, presumably following comments from the referee or editor. The first version of the paper on arXiv (here) used the name HAT-P-2.
K2-1
This is WASP-28 and was only awarded the K2-1 designation retrospectively – and unnecessarily – by the Kepler team (see this page)
K2-11
The properties of this object are so uncertain in the discovery paper (Montet et al., 2015ApJ...809...25M) that its planetary nature is too uncertain for it to be included in TEPCat. Most obviously, its radius measurement is 7.55 ± 9.33 Mearth, so could be negative within the 68% confidence limit.
K2-22
This was found to be a "transiting exoplanet candidate" by Sanchis-Ojeda et al. (2015ApJ...812..112S) under the name of EPIC 201637175b. It has since been renamed K2-22 but its planetary nature is not confirmed. In particular, there are only upper limits on both its mass and radius, and its structure is unknown.Its planetary nature is therefore too uncertain for it to be included in TEPCat.
HIP 41378 d, e, f
Two planets (b and c) showing multiple transits were found around this object, and have been included in TEPCat. A further three probable planets (d, e and f) were detected in this system, but only showed one transit each. These three planets do not have precise orbital period measurements so are not included in TEPCat. Furthermore, two of them are larger than 0.5 Rjup and have no mass constraints, so are not suitable for inclusion in TEPCat on these grounds also.
HIP 116454
This object was renamed as K2-2 by the Kepler team (see this page)
KELT-12
This system is the same as WASP-86. The two were announced on arXiv on successive days (2016/08/16 for WASP-86, 2016/08/17 for KELT-12). An inspection of the discovery papers shows that the radial velocity measurements are better for WASP-86, that the light curves are better for KELT-12, and that the SuperWASP consortium started to obtain dedicated follow-up photometry well before the KELT team (2013/07/16 versus 2014/08/07). Based on this, the system is called WASP-86 in TEPCat so therefore KELT-12 is not included in the catalogue.
KIC 3558849
This object was validated as a transiting planet by Wang et al. (2015ApJ...815..127W), but on the basis of only one transit. The size and uncertainty of the orbital period means it is not feasible to follow this one up, so it does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion in TEPCat.
KIC 5951458
This object was validated as a transiting planet by Wang et al. (2015ApJ...815..127W), but on the basis of only one transit. The size and uncertainty of the orbital period means it is not feasible to follow this one up, so it does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion in TEPCat.
KIC 8435766
This object was renamed as Kepler-78 by the Kepler team (see this page)
KIC 8540376
This object was validated as a transiting planet by Wang et al. (2015ApJ...815..127W), but on the basis of only one transit. The size and uncertainty of the orbital period means it is not feasible to follow this one up, so it does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion in TEPCat.
Kepler-1, Kepler-2 and Kepler-3
The Kepler team decided to assign Kepler designations to first three planets in the field of view of the Kepler satellite, which had already been discovered before the satellite began operation. Kepler-1 is TrES-2, Kepler-2 is HAT-P-7, and Kepler-3 is HAT-P-11. I stick with the original designations because I see no good reason for the Kepler alternatives to exist.
Kepler-70
Kepler-70b and Kepler-70c are two planets orbiting a hot subdwarf star (Charpinet et al. 2011Natur.480..496C). They are not transiting so are not included in TEPCat.
Kepler-71 (BOKS-1)
Confirmation of the planetary nature of Kepler-71b was claimed by Howell et al. (2010ApJ...725.1633H). Its radius is 1.12Rjup and its mass is constrained to be less than ~0.1 Msun. These measurements are not sufficient to rule out the possibility that Kepler-71b is a low-mass star, which means that it is not a confirmed transiting planet. It is therefore not included in TEPCat.
Kepler-72 and Kepler-73
Names have been allocated for these objects (see this page) but analyses of them have yet to be published
Kepler-86 (PH2)
This system was announced by Wang et al. (2013ApJ...776...10W) who claimed a greater than 99.9% chance that it is a planet. But they do not constrain its mass at all, and its radius (0.9 Rjup) is consistent with that of a brown dwarf or very low-mass star. Thus its planetary nature has not been proved, so it has not been added to TEPCat.
KOI-12
This object was renamed as Kepler-448 by the Kepler team (see this page)
KOI-89
This was discussed as a planetary system by Ahlers et al. (2015ApJ...814...67A) but no justification was given of the planetary nature of the two transiting objects. They are therefore not definite planets.
KOI-94
This object was renamed as Kepler-89 by the Kepler team (see this page)
KOI-115
This was validated as a planet at or above the 99.7% confidence level (3σ) by Wang et al. (2014ApJ...783....4W). But their analysis did not account for the possibility that the planet candidate orbits a faint star near the presumed host, which could have a big effect on its measured radius, or for the need to lower the probability values due to the multiple comparisons problem. The planetary nature of this object is therefore unproven so it is not included in TEPCat.
KOI-135
This object was renamed as Kepler-43 by the Kepler team (see this page)
KOI-196
This object was renamed as Kepler-41 by the Kepler team (see this page)
KOI-200
This object was renamed as Kepler-74 by the Kepler team (see this page)
KOI-204
This object was renamed as Kepler-44 by the Kepler team (see this page)
KOI-254
This object was renamed as Kepler-45 by the Kepler team (see this page)
KOI-282
This was validated as a planet at or above the 99.7% confidence level (3σ) by Wang et al (2014ApJ...783....4W). But their analysis did not account for the possibility that the planet candidate orbits a faint star near the presumed host, which could have a big effect on its measured radius, or for the need to lower the probability values due to the multiple comparisons problem. The planetary nature of this object is therefore unproven so it is not included in TEPCat.
KOI-314
This object was renamed as Kepler-138 by the Kepler team (see this page)
KOI-423
This object was renamed as Kepler-39 by the Kepler team (see this page)
KOI-428
This object was renamed as Kepler-40 by the Kepler team (see this page)
KOI-872
This object was renamed as Kepler-46 by the Kepler team (see this page)
KOI-889
This object was renamed as Kepler-75 by the Kepler team (see this page)
KOI-961
This object was renamed as Kepler-42 by the Kepler team (see this page)
KOI-1781
This was validated as a planet at or above the 99.7% confidence level (3σ) by Wang et al (2014ApJ...783....4W). But their analysis did not account for the possibility that the planet candidate orbits a faint star near the presumed host, which could have a big effect on its measured radius, or for the need to lower the probability values due to the multiple comparisons problem. The planetary nature of this object is therefore unproven so it is not included in TEPCat.
KOI-3791 (KIC 5437945)
This object was validated as a transiting planetary system by Wang et al. (2015ApJ...815..127W), but the planet radius is more than 0.5 Rjup so it does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion in TEPCat.
KOI-4307 (KIC 3558849)
This object was validated as a transiting planet by Wang et al. (2015ApJ...815..127W), but on the basis of only one transit. The size and uncertainty of the orbital period means it is not feasible to follow this one up, so it does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion in TEPCat.
KOI-5800 (KIC 10525077)
This object was validated as having two transiting planets by Wang et al. (2015ApJ...815..127W), but the orbital period is uncertain and the two planet candidates are roughly 0.5 Rjup in size. It therefore does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion in TEPCat.
LP 358-499
Three small transiting planets around the M1V star LP 358-499 were announced on 2017/09/05 (Wells et al. 2017). These are not included in TEPCat because they fail one of the criteria for inclusion: there is no adequate error analysis for any of the measured properties of the system (except the Teff) including even the orbital ephemerides.
Lupus-TR-3
This was claimed as a possible planet by Weldrake et al. (2008ApJ...675L..37W) but they could not completely rule out that it was a false positive due to blending with nearby stars. Sackett et al. (2009IAUS..253...55S) found that there were up to seven stars in the PSF of Lupus-TR-3, making the possibility of a false positive quite likely. Lupus-TR-3 has not been clearly proven to be a planet, so I do not include it in TEPCat.
PH2 (Kepler-86)
This system was announced by Wang et al. (2013ApJ...776...10W) who claimed a greater than 99.9% chance that it is a planet. But they do not constrain its mass at all, and its radius (0.9 Rjup) is consistent with that of a brown dwarf or very low-mass star. Thus its planetary nature has not been proved, so it has not been added to TEPCat.
WASP-9
This was thought sufficiently convincing to be given the designation "WASP-9" within the WASP consortium. Further observations subsequently proved it to be a system consisting of at least three stars, which gives an uncannily good impression of being a system containing one star and one planet. This was established prior to writing the discovery paper, and WASP-9 has yet to be the subject of a refereed journal paper.

 


Last modified: 2017/09/05           John Southworth   (Keele University, UK)