For what is sufficient in the inward contrivance to make a new species?
There are some watches that are made with four wheels, others with five; is this a specific difference to the workman?
Some have strings and physics, and others none; some have the balance loose, and others regulated by a spiral spring, and others by hogs' bristles.
Are any or all of these enough to make a specific difference to the workman, that knows each of these and several other different contrivances in the internal constitutions of watches?
It is certain each of these hath a real difference from the rest; but whether it be an essential, a specific difference or no, relates only to the complex idea to which the name watch is given: as long as they all agree in the idea which that name stands for, and that name does not as a generical name comprehend different species under it, they are not essentially nor specifically different.

But if any one will make minuter divisions, from differences that he knows in the internal frame of watches, and to such precise complex ideas give names that shall prevail; they will then be new species, to them who have those ideas with names to them, and can by those differences distinguish watches into these several sorts; and then WATCH will be a generical name.

But yet they would be no distinct species to men ignorant of clock-work, and the inward contrivances of watches, who had no other idea but the outward shape and bulk, with the marking of the hours by the hand.

For to them all those other names would be but synonymous terms for the same idea, and signify no more, nor no other thing but a watch.

Just thus I think it is in natural things.