 One reason to doubt that token causal relations are just instantiations of type causal relations is that there appear to be token causal relations without any corresponding type causal relation, and there appear to be token causal relations which go against the corresponding type causal relations. Scriven (1962) gives the following example: you reach for your cigarettes, accidentally knocking over an ink bottle and staining the carpet. Your reaching for your cigarettes caused the carpet to be stained, but it’s not the case that reaching for cigarettes causes carpet stains in general. Suppes (1970) attributes this example to Deborah Rosen: at the golf course, you hit the ball into a tree, the ball rebounds and, fantastically enough, goes into the hole. In this case, hitting the ball into the tree caused the hole-in-one, but hitting the ball into trees does not cause holes-in-one in general.