splitting is $59 \pm 28$ MeV. So although we might not want to rule out such a large splitting it is inconsistent with the predictions of this model. Next, if we identify the $D_{s1}^*(2710)^\pm$ with the $1^3D_1$, where is the $2^3S_1$ state? Again, comparing to the strange mesons where the $2^3S_1$ is predicted to lie 200 MeV below the $1^3D_1$ state. This is roughly comparable to the $1^3D_1-2^3S_1$ splitting of 168 MeV predicted for the charm-strange mesons. However, in the strange sector, the mesons identified with the $2^3S_1$ and $1^3D_1$ states have a measured mass difference of 303 MeV. So it is possible that the model gets this wrong and the $2^3S_1 (c\bar{s})$ state is also much lighter than predicted. We note that B. Zhang [*et al.*]{} [@Zhang:2006yj] also come to this conclusion by calculating decay widths using the $^3P_0$ model and A. Zhang [@Zhang:2009nu] and Colangelo [*et al.*]{} [@Colangelo:2006rq] come to the same conclusion treating the $D_{s1}^*(2710)^\pm$ and $D_{sJ}^*(2860)$ as $j_q^P ={3\over 2}^-$ and ${5\over 2}^-$ states in the heavy quark limit and calculating the partial widths using an effective Lagrangian approach.

We have examined three possible interpretations of the $D_{s1}^*(2710)^\pm$ and $D_{sJ}^*(2860)$ mesons based on the masses predicted 