In infinite wisdom Alan Anderson answered:

Rich <someone@somewhere.com> wrote:

There is no evidence that "planets become more frequent at lower
masses".

Consider the evidence of your senses.  I assume you've seen planets, but
if not, I'll tell you *my* experience.  Of the six planets and five moons
I've seen with my own eyes (sometimes aided by binoculars), Joseph's
observation holds true.

And here I thought the issue was extrasolar planets. Silly me.

Still seems to me that the locations of a great many of the detected gas
giants are too close to the star to allow stable orbits in the habitable
zone.

Careful searches reveal an ever-increasing number of objects in our solar
system at ever-smaller sizes.  Extrasolar observations hint that our
system is not atypical.

So you say. Care to detail your observations?

Nonetheless, WRT a near circular orbit in the habitable zone, I don't
think it's been shown that our planet is "not atypical." I also don't
think that a preponderance of terrestrial planets can be created by
logic, but I seem pretty unique in this regard. Seems to me that
either they are there, or they are not, and that logic cannot prove
their existence (nor disprove dusprove it, for that matter, but I
think we need positive evidence rather than a lack of negative
evidence to answer the question of existence).

Rich