1. D. J. Prowse:A 6HeΛΛ Double Hyperfragment (University of Wyoming, 1966), to be published;
2. Bull. Am. Phys. Soc.,11, 358 (1966).
3. M. Danysz, K. Garbowska, J. Pniewski, T. Pniewski, J. Zakrzewski, E. R. Fletcher, J. Lemonne, P. Renard, J. Sacton, W. T. Toner, D. O’Sullivan, T. P. Shah, A. Thompson, P. Allen, M. Heeran, A. Montwill, J. E. Allen, M. J. Beniston, D. H. Davis, D. A. Garbutt, V. A. Bull, R. C. Kumar andP. V. Match:Nucl. Phys.,49, 121 (1963).
4. Recently, there was another double hypernuclear event reported byJ. Lemonne, J. Sacton, G. Schorochoff, D. O’Sullivan, T. P. Shah, A. Thompson,Sr. M. Heeran, A. Montwill, R. O. Stanley, M. A. Shaukat, W. T. Toner, P. Allen, D. H. Davis, E. R. Fletcher, J. E. Allen, V. A. Bull, A. P. Conway, M. M. Kasim, P. V. March, K. Pniewska, T. Pniewski, M. F. Votruba, M. Suk, Z. Vintz, A. Filipkowski, J. Herynek, J. Piekarz andJ. Zakrzewski:Nuovo Cimento,41, 235 (1966). This event is, however, not useful for our purpose, since its identity could not be established.
5. In a number of detailed calculations (ref. (5–8)), the identification as10BeΛΛ has always been assumed. This is perhaps not too serious, since, as pointed out by Dalitz (R. H. Dalitz:Phys. Lett.,5, 53 (1963)), the analysis of this event as11BeΛΛ would likely lead to a similar estimate for the Λ-Λ strength. Also, the analysis ofDanysz et al. showed that those interpretations in terms of litbium double hyperfragments appeared to be less likely.