I think you're right, the member is not really private. But for that reason the authors wrote
the member is essentially private inside the subclass
because they wanted to point out, that no other class (excluding subclasses) in the package can acces this member. One could think: ok the inherited member is a protected one, so all classes in packageB (convention: package names always begin with small letters) can access it. The authors made clear that this is not how it works.
I knew I would regret that burrito. But this tiny ad has never caused regrets:
Free, earth friendly heat - from the CodeRanch trailboss