 However, those who interpret the watch passage as implying arbitrariness in classification (see Uzgalis (1988) and Jones (2010)) would have at least two replies. First, that ‘arbitrary’ does not mean ‘random’ or that all qualities are equally adequate as differentia. The vulgar have good empirical reasons for their taxonomies, however, there are lots of similarly good and natural reasons for different taxonomies. That does not imply that every taxonomy is equally as acceptable. Moreover, given the background of corpuscularians who appeal to corpuscular forms as a ground for natural kind realism, and given that Locke’s focus is the internal structure and arrangement of objects, it is plausible to see the watch passage as insisting that real essences are not an adequate foundation for a theory of natural kinds.