Errors found within K.R.Lang: 'The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Sun', 1st edition, Cambridge/UK, 2001 - and suggested information I missed: list last updated by H.Woehl, November 7, 2001 1) p.8, left column: The date of the launch of the satellite for observing solar soft x-rays, Solar-A = Yohkoh, is given for the 21 February 1981. Correct is that it was launched only about 10.5 years later, on 30 August 1991. This is correctly explained on p.198, left column, and in the glossary under the entry 'Yohkoh'. 2) p.36, text to Fig.2.7: The courtesy was by 'Siegfried Marx' instead of 'Sigfreid Mark'. Whether his reference should still include an institute and a republic, which were 'closed' more than 10 years ago, is another topic. 3) p.65, text to Fig.3.3: The flux of neutrinos is given correctly at the vertical axis per square-meters, but wrong at the end of the last two sentences of the text per meter (m^-1). It should be given that this is the flux of solar neutrinos computed for a distance of 1 AU from the sun. 4) p.77, left column: The statement, that '... it takes about 170 thousand years, for radiation to work its way out from the Sun's core to the bottom of the convective zone.' is not explained. In the book of R.Kippenhahn and A.Weigert 'Stellar Structure and Evolution' (Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg 1990) in its sections 3.3 and 5.3 a calculation of the Kelvin-Helmholtz- time-scale is given and stated that this is the time it takes a thermal fluctuation to travel from centre to surface of a star. The Kelvin-Helmholtz time-scale for the sun is given as about 16 million years by Kippenhahn and Weigert (their page 18). The time the energy fluctuation needs to travel through the solar convective zone is much, much smaller: Following again Kippenhahn and Weigert (page 55), the speed turbulent eddies rise is up to 100 m/s. Even higher values are seen in the rise of the granules. Therefore the given time of about 16 million years is also the time for the energy to travel by radiation through the radiative zone of the sun. 5) p.87ff.and glossary: From my point of view K.R.Lang gives a rather bad description of the amount of differential rotation. He should have introduced the concept of angular velocity, which is 360 / rotation period [degrees/day]. His Table 4.1 could then show a decrease of the angular rotation from 14.02 degrees/day at the solar equator to 10.78 degrees/day at a latitude of 75 degrees. Thus the angular speed at 75 degrees is still about 77 % of that at the equator, while the rotation speed at this latitude is reduced to only 20 %. This demonstrates that the 'geometric effect' (caluclated by cos(latitude)) is much bigger than that of the differential rotation. In the sentence stretching from the left to the right column of p.87 the third word on the right column ('also') therefore should be changed to 'mainly'. Taking into account the amount of data accumulated for the differential rotation it would be also useful to give a formula which is used to fit the differential rotation of the solar plasma: angular velocity = A + B * (sin(latitude))^2 + C * (sin(latitude))^4 with A, B and C parameters of the fit in e.g. degrees/day or microradaians/s. It is interesting that stable sunspots within the same latitude can have different angular rotation velocities of up to 1 degree/day. It should also be mentioned that young sunspot groups rotate with a higher speed than the surrounding plasma, this speed difference of up to 100 m/s is becoming smaller when sunspots age. Old recurrent sunspot groups exhibit similar angular rotation velocities as the solar plasma. 6) p.100, Fig.5.7: There is no indication of the dimension of the sunspot area: It is given in percent of the visible hemisphere of the sun. 7) p.100, sunspot activity cycle lengths: It is not correct that the time from maximum to maximum varies between 10 to 12 years, as stated in the sentence connecting the left and right column on p.100. It took between 8.2 and 17.1 years within the last 23 counted cycles. The data showed, that the maxima of cycles are shifted depending on the activity, while the minima are more stable in phase: The extremes between succeeding minima were between 9.0 and 13.6 years for the same 23 cycles. (Sources: M.Waldmeier, The sunspot-activity in the years 1610-1960, Zurich 1991 and the Table 5.1 given by Lang on p.100). It should be mentioned that there is still some debate about old cycles, e.g. I.G.Usoskin et al. in Astron.Astrophys. 370, L31 (2001) suggest that cycle No.4 with an extremely long duration at the end of the 18th century - at the begin of the Dalton minimum of solar activity - should be divided into two cycles. 8) p.106: I do not agree with several suggestions and facts given related with total solar eclipses: a) I do not know why the coronal emission seen during a total solar eclipse should be very hazardous to human eyes: The brightness is about that of the moon. Dangerous is the partial eclipse, of course. I have viewed the total solar eclipses of 26 February 1998 and 11 August 1999 by naked eyes and had no problems with it - like millions of others. b) When the shadow of a total eclipse traces a narrow path across the earth's surface, in general a partial eclipse is visible not only in nearby places but also such several 1000 km distant. - The wrong geometric relations of diameters and distances of earth and moon in Fig.5.18 suggest a too small penumbral diameter. c) There are essential points missing when describing the speed of the umbra of a total solar eclipse on ground: The motion of the moon in its orbit around the earth is about a factor of two of the value given (nearly 3 700 km/hour). But the rotation of the earth in the same direction of the projected shadow of the moon reduces its speed on ground depending on latitude by up to a maximum of about 1 700 km/hour. Thus the speed over ground is reduced to about 2 000 km/hour or more and depends much on the latitude on earth where the total eclipse occurs. When the shadow is entering and leaving the earth, its speed over ground increases often to more than 3 000 km/hour by the projection. 9) p.109: on the bottom of the left column the reference should be to Focus 5.3, instead of 5.2. 10) p.139, Focus 6.6, glossary 'gauss': At the end of this insert it is corretly stated that 0.03 tesla are 300 gauss, but instead of 1 gauss = 10 000 tesla, it should be given: 1 tesla = 10 000 gauss. In the last line of the entry 'gauss' in the glossary it should read '1 T = 10 000 Gauss = 10^4 Gauss' instead of '1 T = 10 000 T = 10^4 T'. 11) p.189, left column: The third sentence starting with 'Although we cannot see it...' contains a not understandable part at '..., very diAstronomers could not obtain...' 12) p.191/193: There is some additional information useful related with ground-based optical telescopes to observe the sun: a) Not only tower telescopes are evacuated to reduce local turbulence, but already the old Gregory coude (now given as the fifth entry in Table 9.2) was and is an evacuated telescope. It is in operation as an evacuated telescope since 1968 - first at Locarno/Switzerland and after minor reconstruction since 1985 on Tenerife. b) Modern electronic image selection techniques, the success of adaptive optics to correct the wavefront disturbed by turbulence and modern light-weight technology with very thin and light mirrors favor again open solar telescopes. An example is the Dutch Open Telescope (dot.astro.uu.nl) and in preparation phase the GREGOR (to replace the Gregory coude telescope mentioned in point a) - see: gregor.kis.uni-freiburg.de) and in planning phase the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST, see at: www.sunspot.noao.edu/ATST/index.html).