<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>thats 3 out of god knows how many though<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It's three out of three. The astronomers studied all three of the known planet-bearing red dwarfs. All had lower metallicities than the Sun. In contrast, most Sunlike stars with planets have higher metallicities than the Sun.<br /><br />Since those observations, I've seen a report of a fourth red dwarf with planets.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But the web says M dwarfs may have life.Premature to suggest.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It's surely not premature to suggest the mere possibility.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I read the link and did not see any mention of life whatsoever.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The author bio at the end of the article contains a link to a New Scientist article on the topic.<br /><br /><p><hr />"Red dwarf stars in general do not have planets."<br /><br />Curious. One wonders if the author has sent out several hundred probes and found that out or knows of some alien, space faring species which has. <p><hr /><br /><br />The article doesn't say that. It simply says that astronomers have discovered few planets around red dwarfs. However, if most red dwarfs have only small planets--as might be the case, since these are small stars--then astronomers would not have detected them.<br /><br />Also, note the statement from Gregory Laughlin: he says metallicity should influence the presence of Saturn- and Jupiter-mass planets, but not Neptune-mass and smaller planets.</p></p>