This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
It would seem so. Internal differentiation would imply hydrostatic equilibrium. But the context is different: formation of the Solar system vs. current geology.
Hm, I take that back. You could perhaps have partial differention without full equilibrium. Also, what about a case like Vesta, which was (presumably) once in equilibrium, but no longer is? It's a protoplanet, but is it a DP? — kwami (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Going out on a limb, I would say all dwarf planets are proto-planets, but not all proto-planets are dwarf planets?! -- Kheider (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Do we even know enough to say? The current definition of pp's would probably make them all dp's, but the current definition does not include Ceres. — kwami (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Vesta and Pallas are proto-planets, but not accepted as dwarf planets. I will be very curious to see what we learn of Vesta's interior and crust. -- Kheider (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)