The two notes in JIPA 20(2) by Kohler (1990) and Ladefoged (1990) concerning the phonemic status of present-day Standard German ç] and [x] are one of many pieces of evidence that distributional (‘taxonomic’) phonemics has happily survived the thirty-year war with Generative Phonology and its offspring. But it is common knowledge among linguists that even half a century after Bloch's (1948) classic paper there is still no fixed and exhaustive set of postulates for phonemic analysis. Such questions as partial overlapping or neutralization or—especially important—‘grammatical prerequisites’ (Pike 1947, 1952) are still open issues, and it is quite probable that, at least for the last-named problem, there is no single, universal solution. In fact, it may very well be that languages differ inherently in this respect, and that for some of them the decision cannot be made in categorial terms. In nonextreme cases there may be at least two different solutions, each valid within its respective framework, one based on the assumption of the analytical primacy of grammatical (or part-grammatical) analysis, and the other on the reverse assumption of pure phonetic distribution. But even with juşt one of these alternatives, one given phonetic-environmental description may lead to a number of different solutions, as exemplified with particular conspicuity by Łobacz (1973). Admitting the alternative of primacy of morphemic analysis vs. pure phonetic distribution, she demonstrated that 504 (sic) different phonemic interpretations of one kind of Standard Polish are possible.