width and $\Gamma(D^*K)/\Gamma(DK)$ ratio are 29 MeV and 0.42 respectively. As already stated, we can accept that our width predictions are off by a factor of two but we still need to understand the discrepancy in the ratio of BR’s. Unlike the $1^3D_1$ decays, the amplitudes for the the $1^3D_3 \to D^*K$ and $DK$ are “structure independent” amplitudes so we do not expect the ratio of BR’s to change. A possible explanation is the same as we suggested for the $D_{s1}^*(2710)^\pm$ state, that the bump at 2860 MeV could be explained as two overlapping resonances, the $1^3D_3(c\bar{s})$ state and a $1D_2$ state which would explain the discrepancy in the $\Gamma(D^*K)/\Gamma(DK)$ ratio [@Zhong:2009sk].

Putting these pieces together we arrive at the possibility that the $D_{s1}^*(2710)^\pm$ is the $1^3D_1$ state and the $D_{sJ}(2860)$ is the $1^3D_3$ state with overlapping $1D_2$ states that modify the observed $\Gamma(D^*K)/\Gamma(DK)$ ratios. However this does lead to a number of questions. First, with this explanation the measured $1^3D_1-1^3D_3$ splitting, $\sim 154$ MeV, would be much much larger than the predicted splitting of 18 MeV. For comparison, in the strange meson system, the only light-heavy system for which there are candidate states for the $1^3D_1$ and $1^3D_3$, the 