 However, when \(R\) is an equivalence relation, we are entitled to such an inference. Consider the notorious case of “surmen” (Geach 1967). A pair of men are the “same surman” if they have the same surname; and a surman is a man who bears this relation to someone. So now it appears that that two different men can be the same surman, since two different men can have the same surname. As Geach (1967) insists (also Geach 1973), surmen are defined to be men, so they are not merely classes of men. Hence we seem to have an instance of RI, and obviously any similarity relation (e.g., \(x\) and \(y\) have the same shape) will give rise to a similar case. Yet such instances of RI are not very interesting. It is granted all around that when ‘\(F\)’ is adjectival, different \(G\)s may be the same \(F\). Different men may have the same surname, different objects, the same color, etc. Turning an adjectival similarity relation into a substantival one having the form of an identity statement yields an identity statement in name only.