 C. C. W. Taylor (1999: 175–9) is among scholars who hold that this corresponds to the modern distinction of P/SQs, but the attribution is problematic. It is true, that the properties of atoms are sharply divided from things that are by convention, including some SQs, but the problem is that the range of things by convention is unspecified in the fragments. Other scholars cite ancient testimony to the effect that it is meant to include everything apprehended by sense perception (Lee 2011: 21–8; Pasnau 2007). If so, the ancient distinction does not map onto a division between SQs and PQs that are sensible. Because the textual context of the fragments is now unknown and ancient testimony about it is conflicting, a definitive interpretation is unlikely (Pasnau 2007).