 A significantly different counterpart theory is proposed by Delia Graff Fara (Fara 2008, 2012). Fara analyzes modality de re in terms of sortal sameness rather than similarity. She clearly distinguishes sortal sameness (e.g., “is the same boat as”) from identity (“is identical with”), and this qualifies her analysis as a version of counterpart theory: a given boat is F at a world if and only if at that world something that is the same boat as--rather than identical with--that given boat is F. This also somewhat alleviates Kripke’s famous complaint against counterpart theory. Suppose that a boat B is actually made up of a hunk of wood W and a small plank P is a proper part of W. It is intuitively sensible to hold that B is identical with W, that B could have lacked P as a part, and that W could not have lacked P as a part. But this intuitive view appears internally incoherent. If B is identical with W and W could not have lacked P as a part, then it appears that B also could not have lacked P as a part; in other words, B without P appears to be an impossible object. On Fara’s analysis, B could have lacked P if and only if at some possible world, some x is such that x is the same boat as B and x lacks P, and W could have lacked P if and only if at some possible world, some y is such that y is the same hunk of wood as W and y lacks P. Since y may not be the same boat as x (e.g., y may not be a boat at all), there is not even an appearance of inconsistency with the latter lacking (a counterpart of) P and the former not lacking it. Thus, even if B is identical with W and W could not have lacked P, B could have lacked P, i.e., B without P is a possible object even though W without P is not. Whereas Lewis invokes similarity, which is relative to contextually shifting respects, Fara invokes sortal sameness, which is less shifty. Fara’s counterpart theory also interestingly avoids denying the necessity of identity.