  As new classes of transients and variable stars are discovered, and
theoretical models are established to work or not to work for a few members of
the class, it is often the case that some researchers will make arguments on
the basis of Occam's razor that all members of the class must be produced by
whichever mechanism first successfully explained one of the objects. It is also
frequent that this assumption will be more more implicitly. Retrospective
analysis shows rather clearly that this argument fails a large fraction of the
time, and in many cases, this search for false consistency has led to more
fundamental astrophysical errors, a few of which are quite prominent in the
history of astronomy. A corollary of this is that on numerous occasions,
theoretical models to explain transients have turned out to be models that
describe real (but often not yet discovered) phenomenona other than the ones to
which they have first been applied, albeit with minor errors that caused the
model to appear to fit to a known phenomenon it did not describe. A set of
examples of such events is presented here (some of which will be quite familiar
to most astronomers), along with a discussion of why this phenomenon occurs,
how it may be manifesting itself at the present time. Some discussion will also
be made of why and when survey designs have led to immediate separation of
various transient mechanisms, generally by being overpowered in some way
relative to what is needed to {\it detect} a new class of objects.
