of the decay to $D^*K$ compared to $DK$ we expect an enhancement in the $\Gamma(D^*K)/\Gamma(DK)$ ratio, although it is unlikely to be sufficient to bring it into agreement with experiment.

This brings us back to a point mentioned previously, that the physical $J=2$ states are mixtures of $1^3D_2$ and $1^1D_2$ resulting in one narrow and one broad state approximately degenerate with the $1^3D_1$ and $1^3D_3$ states. Perhaps the peak seen at 2710 MeV has contributions from two states, the $1^3D_1$ state and one of the $1D_2$ states. Because the $1D_2$ states can only decay to $D^*K$ due to conservation of angular momentum and parity, the bump seen in the $D^*K$ final state might have contributions from both the $1^3D_1$ and the $1D_2$ states and be enhanced relative to what would be predicted from the $1^3D_1$ on its own, thereby explaining the observed $\Gamma(D^*K)/\Gamma(DK)$ ratio. With sufficient statistics it should be possible to study the angular distributions of the final states and test this possibility. This explanation leaves the $D_{sJ}^*(2860)$ unaccounted for.

A possibility put forward in the literature for the $D_{sJ}^*(2860)$ is that it is the $1^3D_3(c\bar{s})$ state [@Zhang:2006yj; @Colangelo:2006rq; @Zhong:2009sk; @Zhang:2009nu; @Chen:2009zt; @Li:2009qu; @Li:2010vx; @Chen:2011rr; @Yuan:2012ej]. The predicted total 