1. R. J. Oakes, Phys. Rev. 131 (1963) 2239.
2. 'Review of Particle Properties', Rev. Mod. Phys. 56 (1984).
3. It is sometimes argued that this intuitive reasoning is not correct for it would lead one to demand the existence of the helium molecule and its excited states just because excited states of the helium atom exist. This is not so. The more proper analogy would also point out that while the helium molecule (e2·e2) does not exist, lithium hydride does (e3·e). q3·q3 dibaryons may not exist fot the same reasons that the (e2·e2) helium molecule does not exist but the qn q6−n (n≠3) dibaryon could very well exist.
4. R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 195.
5. A. Th. M. Aerts, P. J. G. Mulders and J. J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. D17 (1978) 260