A dwarf planet is a small planetary-mass object that is in direct orbit around

the Sun, massive enough to be gravitationally rounded, but insufficient to achieve orbital
dominance like the eight classical planets of the Solar System. The prototypical dwarf planet
is Pluto, which for decades was regarded as a planet before the "dwarf" concept was adopted in
2006.
Dwarf planets are likely to be geologically active, an expectation that was borne out in 2015 by
the Dawn mission to Ceres and the New Horizons mission to Pluto. Planetary geologists are
therefore particularly interested in them.
Astronomers are in general agreement that at least the nine largest candidates are dwarf planets
– in rough order of size, Pluto, Eris, Haumea, Makemake, Gonggong, Quaoar, Ceres, Orcus,
and Sedna. Considering the ten largest candidates adds Salacia.[b] Of these ten, two have been
visited by spacecraft (Pluto and Ceres) and seven others have at least one known moon (Eris,
Haumea, Makemake, Gonggong, Quaoar, Orcus, and Salacia), which allows their masses and
thus an estimate of their densities to be determined. Mass and density in turn can be fit into
geophysical models in an attempt to determine the nature of these worlds. Only one, Sedna, has
neither been visited nor has any known moons, making an accurate estimate of mass difficult.
Some astronomers include many smaller bodies as well,[1] but there is no consensus that these
are likely to be dwarf planets.
The term dwarf planet was coined by planetary scientist Alan Stern as part of a three-way
categorization of planetary-mass objects in the Solar System: classical planets, dwarf planets,
and satellite planets. Dwarf planets were thus conceived of as a category of planet. In 2006,
however, the concept was adopted by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) as a category
of sub-planetary objects, part of a three-way recategorization of bodies orbiting the Sun: planets,
dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies.[2] Thus Stern and other planetary geologists
consider dwarf planets and large satellites to be planets,[3] but since 2006, the IAU and perhaps
the majority of astronomers have excluded them from the roster of planets.

History of the concept[edit]

Main articles: Geophysical definition of planet and IAU definition of planet

Composite exaggerated-color image of Pluto and its

moon Charon. Separation not to scale 4 Vesta, an asteroid

that was once a dwarf planet [4]
Starting in 1801, astronomers discovered Ceres and other bodies between Mars and Jupiter that
for decades were considered to be planets. Between then and around 1851, when the number of
planets had reached 23, astronomers started using the word asteroid (from Greek, meaning
'star-like' or 'star-shaped') for the smaller bodies and began to distinguish them as minor
planets rather than major planets.[5]
With the discovery of Pluto in 1930, most astronomers considered the Solar System to have nine
major planets, along with thousands of significantly smaller bodies (asteroids and comets). For
almost 50 years, Pluto was thought to be larger than Mercury,[6][7] but with the discovery in 1978 of
Pluto's moon Charon, it became possible to measure Pluto's mass accurately and to determine
that it was much smaller than initial estimates.[8] It was roughly one-twentieth the mass of
Mercury, which made Pluto by far the smallest planet. Although it was still more than ten times as
massive as the largest object in the asteroid belt, Ceres, it had only one-fifth the mass of
Earth's Moon.[9] Furthermore, having some unusual characteristics, such as large orbital
eccentricity and a high orbital inclination, it became evident that it was a different kind of body
from any of the other planets.[10]
In the 1990s, astronomers began to find objects in the same region of space as Pluto (now
known as the Kuiper belt), and some even farther away.[11] Many of these shared several of
Pluto's key orbital characteristics, and Pluto started being seen as the largest member of a new
class of objects, the plutinos. It became clear that either the larger of these bodies would also
have to be classified as planets, or Pluto would have to be reclassified, much as Ceres had been
reclassified after the discovery of additional asteroids.[12] This led some astronomers to stop
referring to Pluto as a planet. Several terms, including subplanet and planetoid, started to be
used for the bodies now known as dwarf planets.[13][14] Astronomers were also confident that more
objects as large as Pluto would be discovered, and the number of planets would start growing
quickly if Pluto were to remain classified as a planet.[15]
Eris (then known as 2003 UB313) was discovered in January 2005;[16] it was thought to be slightly
larger than Pluto, and some reports informally referred to it as the tenth planet.[17] As a
consequence, the issue became a matter of intense debate during the IAU General Assembly in
August 2006.[18] The IAU's initial draft proposal included Charon, Eris, and Ceres in the list of
planets. After many astronomers objected to this proposal, an alternative was drawn up by the
Uruguayan astronomers Julio Ángel Fernández and Gonzalo Tancredi: They proposed an
intermediate category for objects large enough to be round but that had not cleared their orbits
of planetesimals. Beside dropping Charon from the list, the new proposal also removed Pluto,
Ceres, and Eris, because they have not cleared their orbits.[19]
Although concerns were raised about the classification of planets orbiting other stars,[20] the issue
was not resolved; it was proposed instead to decide this only when dwarf-planet-size objects
start to be observed.[19]
In the immediate aftermath of the IAU definition of dwarf planet, some scientists expressed their
disagreement with the IAU resolution.[21] Campaigns included car bumper stickers and T-shirts.
[22]
Mike Brown (the discoverer of Eris) agrees with the reduction of the number of planets to eight.
[23]

NASA announced in 2006 that it would use the new guidelines established by the IAU.[24] Alan
Stern, the director of NASA's mission to Pluto, rejects the current IAU definition of planet, both in
terms of defining dwarf planets as something other than a type of planet, and in using orbital
characteristics (rather than intrinsic characteristics) of objects to define them as dwarf planets.
[25]
Thus, in 2011, he still referred to Pluto as a planet,[26] and accepted other likely dwarf planets
such as Ceres and Eris, as well as the larger moons, as additional planets.[27] Several years
before the IAU definition, he used orbital characteristics to separate "überplanets" (the dominant
eight) from "unterplanets" (the dwarf planets), considering both types "planets".[28]

Name[edit]
 Euler diagram showing the IAU Executive Committee
conception of the types of bodies in the Solar System (except the Sun)
Names for large subplanetary bodies include dwarf planet, planetoid (more general term), meso-
planet (narrowly used for sizes between Mercury and Ceres), quasi-planet and (in the
transneptunian region) plutoid. Dwarf planet, however, was originally coined as a term for the
smallest planets, not the largest sub-planets, and is still used that way by many planetary
astronomers.
Alan Stern coined the term dwarf planet, analogous to the term dwarf star, as part of a three-fold
classification of planets, and he and many of his colleagues continue to classify dwarf planets as
a class of planets. The IAU decided that dwarf planets are not to be considered planets, but kept
Stern's term for them. Other terms for the IAU definition of the largest subplanetary bodies that
do not have such conflicting connotations or usage include quasi-planet[29] and the older
term planetoid ("having the form of a planet").[30] Michael E. Brown stated that planetoid is "a
perfectly good word" that has been used for these bodies for years, and that the use of the
term dwarf planet for a non-planet is "dumb", but that it was motivated by an attempt by the IAU
division III plenary session to reinstate Pluto as a planet in a second resolution.[31] Indeed, the
draft of Resolution 5A had called these median bodies planetoids,[32][33] but the plenary session
voted unanimously to change the name to dwarf planet.[2] The second resolution, 5B,
defined dwarf planets as a subtype of planet, as Stern had originally intended, distinguished from
the other eight that were to be called "classical planets". Under this arrangement, the twelve
planets of the rejected proposal were to be preserved in a distinction between eight classical
planets and four dwarf planets. Resolution 5B was defeated in the same session that 5A was
passed.[31] Because of the semantic inconsistency of a dwarf planet not being a planet due to the
failure of Resolution 5B, alternative terms such as nanoplanet and subplanet were discussed, but
there was no consensus among the CSBN to change it.[34]
In most languages equivalent terms have been created by translating dwarf planet more-or-less
literally: French planète naine, Spanish planeta enano, German Zwergplanet,
Russian karlikovaya planeta (карликовая планета), Arabic kaukab qazm (‫)كوكب قزم‬,
Chinese ǎixíngxīng (矮行星), Korean waesohangseong (왜소행성 / 矮小行星)
or waehangseong (왜행성 / 矮行星), but in Japanese they are called junwakusei (準惑星),
meaning "quasi-planets" or "peneplanets" (pene- meaning "almost").
IAU Resolution 6a of 2006[35] recognizes Pluto as "the prototype of a new category of trans-
Neptunian objects". The name and precise nature of this category were not specified but left for
the IAU to establish at a later date; in the debate leading up to the resolution, the members of the
category were variously referred to as plutons and plutonian objects but neither name was
carried forward, perhaps due to objections from geologists that this would create confusion with
their pluton.[2]
On June 11, 2008, the IAU Executive Committee announced a new term, plutoid, and a
definition: all trans-Neptunian dwarf planets are plutoids.[36] Other departments of the IAU have
rejected the term:
...in part because of an email miscommunication, the WG-PSN [Working Group for Planetary
System Nomenclature] was not involved in choosing the word plutoid. ... In fact, a vote taken by
the WG-PSN subsequent to the Executive Committee meeting has rejected the use of that
specific term..."[34]
The category of 'plutoid' captured an earlier distinction between the 'terrestrial dwarf' Ceres and
the 'ice dwarfs' of the outer Solar system,[37] part of a conception of a threefold division of the
Solar System into inner terrestrial planets, central gas giants and outer ice dwarfs, of which Pluto
was the principal member.[38] 'Ice dwarf' also saw some use as an umbrella term for all trans-
Neptunian minor planets, or for the ice asteroids of the outer Solar System; one attempted
definition was that an ice dwarf "is larger than the nucleus of a normal comet and icier than a
typical asteroid."[39]
Since the Dawn mission, it has been recognized that Ceres is an icy body more similar to the icy
moons of the outer planets and to TNOs such as Pluto than it is to the terrestrial planets, blurring
the distinction,[40][41] and Ceres has since been called an ice dwarf as well.[42]

Criteria[edit]
Planetary discriminants[43]

Body m/M [†

]
E
Λ [‡]
µ [§]
Π [#]

Mercury 0.055 1.95×103 9.1×104 1.3×102

Venus 0.815 1.66×105 1.35×10 9.5×102

6

Earth 1 1.53×105 1.7×106 8.1×102

Mars 0.107 9.42×102 1.8×105 5.4×101

Ceres 0.00016 8.32×10− 0.33 4.0×10−

4 2

Jupiter 317.7 1.30×109 6.25×10 4.0×104

5

Saturn 95.2 4.68×107 1.9×105 6.1×103

Uranus 14.5 3.85×105 2.9×104 4.2×102
Neptun
17.1 2.73×105 2.4×104 3.0×102
e

Pluto 0.0022 2.95×10− 0.077 2.8×10−

3 2

Eris 0.0028 2.13×10− 0.10 2.0×10−

3 2

Sedna 0.0002 3.64×10− < 0.07[c] 1.6×10−

7 4

Planetary discriminants of the planets ( white ), and of the

largest known dwarf planet ( light purple ) in each orbital
population (asteroid belt, Kuiper belt, scattered disc, sednoids).
All other known objects in these populations have smaller
discriminants than the one shown.

[†] Mass in M , the unit of mass equal to that of

E

Earth ( 5.97 × 1024 kg ).

[‡] Λ is the capacity to clear the
neighbourhood (greater than 1 for planets) by
Stern & Levison (2002): Λ [28]

= k m2 a , where k = 0.0043 for m in units

− + 3 /2
 Planetary discriminants[43]

Body m/M [†

]
E
Λ [‡]
µ [§]
Π [#]

of yottagrams (10 metric tons)

18

and a in astronomical units (AU), where a is

the body's semi-major axis. [28]

[§] µ is Soter's planetary discriminant, which he

finds greater than 100 for
planets. µ = m/ M − m , where m is the mass of
the body, and M is the aggregate mass of all the
bodies that occupy its orbital zone. [43]

[#] Π is the capacity to clear the

neighbourhood (greater than 1 for planets) by
Margot. Π = k m a , where k = 807 for units
− + 9 /8

of Earth masses and AU. [45]

The category dwarf planet arose from a conflict between dynamical and geophysical ideas of
what a useful conception of a planet would be. In terms of the dynamics of the Solar System, the
major distinction is between bodies that gravitationally dominate their neighbourhood (Mercury
through Neptune) and those that do not (such as the asteroids and Kuiper belt objects). A
celestial body may have a dynamic (planetary) geology at approximately the mass required for its
mantle to become plastic under its own weight, which results in the body acquiring a round
shape. Because this requires a much lower mass than gravitationally dominating the region of
space near their orbit, there are a population of objects that are massive enough to have a world-
like appearance and planetary geology, but not massive enough to clear their neighborhood.
Examples are Ceres in the asteroid belt and Pluto in the Kuiper belt.[46]
Dynamicists usually prefer using gravitational dominance as the threshold for planethood,
because from their perspective smaller bodies are better grouped with their neighbours, e.g.
Ceres as simply a large asteroid and Pluto as a large Kuiper belt object.[47][48] Geoscientists usually
prefer roundness as the threshold, because from their perspective the internally driven geology
of a body like Ceres makes it more similar to a classical planet like Mars, than to a small asteroid
that lacks internally driven geology. This necessitated the creation of the category of dwarf
planets to describe this intermediate class.[46]
Orbital dominance[edit]
Main article: Clearing the neighbourhood
Stern & Levison (2000) introduced a parameter Λ (upper case lambda), expressing the likelihood
of an encounter resulting in a given deflection of orbit.[28] The value of this parameter in Stern's
model is proportional to the square of the mass and inversely proportional to the period. This
value can be used to estimate the capacity of a body to clear the neighbourhood of its orbit,
where Λ > 1 will eventually clear it. A gap of five orders of magnitude in Λ was found between
the smallest terrestrial planets and the largest asteroids and Kuiper belt objects.[43]
Using this parameter, Soter and other astronomers argued for a distinction between planets and
dwarf planets based on the inability of the latter to "clear the neighbourhood around their orbits":
planets are able to remove smaller bodies near their orbits by collision, capture, or gravitational
disturbance (or establish orbital resonances that prevent collisions), whereas dwarf planets lack
the mass to do so.[28] Soter went on to propose a parameter he called the planetary discriminant,
designated with the symbol µ (mu), that represents an experimental measure of the actual
degree of cleanliness of the orbital zone (where µ is calculated by dividing the mass of the
candidate body by the total mass of the other objects that share its orbital zone), where µ >
100 is deemed to be cleared.[43]
Jean-Luc Margot refined Stern and Levison's concept to produce a similar parameter Π (upper
case Pi).[45] It is based on theory, avoiding the empirical data used by Λ . Π > 1 indicates a
planet, and there is again a gap of several orders of magnitude between planets and dwarf
planets.
There are several other schemes that try to differentiate between planets and dwarf planets,
[21]
but the 2006 definition uses this concept.[2]