 Salmon’s argument is a variant on Evans’s (1978) argument against the possibility of vague objects. It is controversial in general whether arguments of this form succeed, for applications of Leibniz’s Law in intensional contexts are questionable. Catterson (2008) argues on independent grounds that Salmon’s argument is not sound. We should also note that, even if the argument is successful, it does not directly establish Salmon’s Extreme Haecceitism, but only the conditional thesis that if there are any true transworld identity statements x = y, then they are not reducible to general facts about x and y.