  So while Sylvan’s contribution to relevant logic was seminal, his concerns diverged from some other “relevantists”. In some otherwise highly critical remarks, Burgess (1983, 45) writes that “Routleyanism and Andersonianobelnapianism are so dissimilar that it is misleading to apply a single label ‘relevantism’ to both. (And indeed, [Sylvan] sometimes adopts a different label.)”