$\pp$ and $\ppp$ partial widths to $J/\psi \pi \pi$.

A nonrelativistic calculation along the lines of Ref. [@YNY] then yields the following predictions [@B88]: (\_[c0]{}) = 145 [keV]{} \^2 (1.73 + )\^2  , (\_[c1]{}) = 176 [keV]{} \^2 (-0.87 + )\^2  , (\_[c2]{}) = 167 [keV]{} \^2 (0.17 + )\^2  , (\_[c0]{}) = 67 [keV]{} \^2 (1 - 1.73 )\^2  , (\_[c1]{}) = 56 [keV]{} \^2 (1 + 0.87 )\^2  , (\_[c2]{}) = 39 [keV]{} \^2 (1 - 0.17 )\^2  . Other predictions are given, for example, in Ref. cite[GZS]{}. Zhu has apparently neglected to take account of relative signs of S-wave and D-wave contributions in the first three of the above equations when presenting his results for mixed states (Fig. 1.6.2, Ref. [@Zhu]). For small $\phi$, as suggested by the $\pp$ and $\ppp$ leptonic widths, the experimental rates for the $\pp$ radiative decays are about a factor of three below these predictions [@PDG], probably as a result of relativistic corrections [@MR; @MB]. The $\pp$ decays are expected to be particularly sensitive to such corrections as a result of the node in the $2S$ wave function; it is possible that the $\ppp$ predictions could be more reliable, since neither the 