Apparent Errors/typos in Aubrey-Maturin Novels

I have read the series (in particular Nos. 1-17) numerous times. Along the way, I have underlined words to look up and scrawled occasional notes in the books.

Recently, I have started noting items that I thought might be mistakes/typos. I was curious about whether other people have spotted some of these and whether I am correct in thinking that they are, in fact, mistakes/errors.

I saw a previous topic on mistakes. I don't intend "mistakes" to really connote criticism in this case: What I am after is more along the lines of things that can be sent to the publisher as mistakes/typos that could be corrected. I found the series to be superlative
and merely wish to proffer some information that may lead to it not being diminished by typos/oversights.

For example, I just grabbed two of the books that were handy and found a couple of things of this sort that I noted.

Post Captain

P. 11 -- refers to the Cacafuego as a 36-gun xebec-frigate. (I think I found other references where it was described as a 32-gun.)

HMS Surprise --

P. 26 -- "Sir Joseph Blain" -- should be Blaine.

P. 277 -- " . . . as they slanted down toward the line, crossing it in ninety-one degrees of latitude east of Greenwich." -- should be "longitude," not "latitude, I believe.

P. 325 -- " . . . with one or two of your fine ships on one side of him and the [i]Surprise[i] on the other, I will answer for it if we can beat the seventy-four, let along the frigates.' "

-- think that should be "cannot" beat the seventy-four . . . .

I intend on rereading the series and making more systemic notes of the potential typos/errors I see with an eye to eventually passing them on to the publisher.

I'm curious whether anyone else has compiled any similar list. If so, I would welcome that information and/or feedback on the accuracy of the things I have identified as being likely erroneous.

I would also be interested in discussion of other potential errors as an ancillary matter too, e.g., the proper status of the Ringle as a prize, legal possession, etc.

My primary intent, however, is to hopefully to be able to offer suggestions to improve/correct the small, unintentional errors that may have crept into the novels in a few places.

(One device that I have seen is having such things footnoted with an explanation along the lines of "so in original--may have intended "32" instead of "36.")

From the lack of anyone else having marked any of these type errors, I'm sensing a dearth of anal-retentive people . . . .

Normally I'm not especially picky either, but I just happened to see a couple of things that to me stood out like a mustache on the Mona Lisa.

People often read what they expect to see instead of the actual typed word which is why they are there in the first place even though it has been proof read by a number of people.

I would never note/remember such typos unless there were an awful lot - and worth commenting on in a review, or I'm doing a prepublication read through

@Astrodene -- in a way that was kind of my idea -- just to submit them to Norton so they could clean them up in subsequent publications.