 So Scotus holds that the explanations for indivisibility and distinction are the same. To understand why he supposes that this explanation needs to be something real, we need to keep in mind his account of the reality of common natures, outlined in the previous section, for the reality of common natures is a premise in Scotus’s defense of the existence of haecceities. Since such natures are real, Scotus reasons, the haecceities that tie such natures to individuals must be equally real too: