I recently became engaged in the work of Siegel, Schmidt, Rogers, Macbeath regarding random lattices and geometry of numbers, e.g. Siegel proved that
$\int_{SL(n,\mathbb{R})/SL(n,\mathbb{Z})} \sum_{ 0 \neq u \in \Lambda} f(v) d \mu(\Lambda)= \int_{\mathbb{R}^n}f(x) dx$, where $\mu$ is the normed Haar measure on $SL(n, \mathbb{R})$.

However, I believe that I've found some inconsistencies in the work of Rogers and Macbeath. I would be very grateful if someone who is familiar with this field could confirm these, or point out that I'm wrong. 

- In [1] I strongly suspect theorem 1, pg. 147, to be wrong. The theorem is a formula 
  for the integral containing a sum over $l$ linear independent primitive points.
  In the case $l=2$ and after normalising the Haar measure in the theorem states
  $\int_F \sum_{...} f(u,v)d \mu(\Lambda) = \frac{1}{\zeta(n)\zeta(n-1)} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n^2}} f(x,y) d(x,y)$, where the sum on the left ranges over all
primitive points $u,v \in \Lambda$ with $dim(u,v)=2$. $F$ is a fundamental domain for $SL(n,\mathbb{R})/SL(n,\mathbb{Z})$ here. However, this contradicts other results, e.g. by Rogers himself where the factor on the right hand side should be $\frac{1}{\zeta(n)^2}$ instead. 
- Also, in my opinion in [1] lemma 9, pg.150, should be wrong as well, because the desired representation should not be unique. 
- In [2], pg. 252,  Rogers emphasises that theorem 5 works for $n \geq 2$. Although, in the proof of this theorem Rogers uses theorem 3 of the same paper which should not apply in the case $n=2$. This really surprised me, because Rogers
explicitly highlights that the theorem 5 does apply for $n=2$ in the text above theorem 5.


>[1] Siegel's mean value theorem in the geometry of numbers  
A. M. Macbeath, C. A. Rogers

>[2] Mean values over the space of lattices
C. A. Rogers