There are many problems of universals, at least the four distinguished by Jenny Teichmann. Consider her second one. ‘How can we form a general term when we are faced with easily distinguishable, widely differing examples?’ The term ‘blue’, for example, covers a wide range of—well, whatdoesit cover a wide range of? A wide range of the colour blue? This is nonsense. What it covers is a wide range ofblues—shades of blue. But we do not form a general term when faced with orreferringtotheseitems. Wedistinguishthem: cerulean, ultramarine, cyan, cobalt, navy blue and so on. ‘Blue’ is not thenameof any of theseshadesof blue. It does not ‘cover’ anything except thecolour, of which it is the name. ‘Blue’ is the name of the colour blue. There are no widely differing, easily distinguishable examples ofthat. The colour blue cannot differ widely or easily be distinguished from the colour blue. Leibniz's law prevents it. It is shades of blue (blues, a blue, this blue, that blue) which differ and are easily distinguishable. The moment we try to say, ‘But this differs from that’, the question will be, ‘This and thatwhat?’ If the answer is, ‘This colour (the colour blue)’ and ‘That colour (the colour blue)’, then a mistake has been made. For there is no differing and distinguishing in this case. (But cf. ‘This colour blue’ and ‘This blue colour’.) Teichmann's problem cannot even be stated. If we say that what differ are this blue and that blue, which is the right thing to say, then we have two count nouns which mean ‘shade of blue’. There is no general term for these different shades. There is no answer to the question, ‘What isthename of all these differing shades?’ Certainly they are all blues, but each has its own name, and it is not ‘blue’. Teichmann's question cannot arise here either. The question, ‘What do blues have in common in virtue of which they are blue?’ is either elliptical or bad logical grammar. Which it is depends on the construal, or misconstrual, of ‘are blue’. The question should be either, ‘…in virtue of which they areblues’ in the plural—theyare not identical with the colour blue—or ‘…in virtue of which they areshadesof blue.’ The plural agreement must come somewhere.