When Hall (Hall & Nordby, 1972) developed the continuity hypothesis, the name continuity aptly contrasted with Jung’s compensation view of dreams (Jung, 1945/1977). However, this article argues that continuity as a name now creates difficulties for a variety of reasons. In G. William Domhoff’s defense of his lineage of the hypothesis (2011, 2017), he explained why he views himself as the legitimate inheritor of Hall’s original hypothesis. He argued that other researchers, who also describe their work as studies in the continuity hypothesis, do not properly come under the rubric of his and Hall’s continuity hypothesis. His proposed resolution of this perceived difference is that the other researchers should change the name of their hypothesis. This article suggests that a large part of the present problem lies in Hall’s original choice of the name continuity without any qualification. When Domhoff, and Hall before him, used continuity, they were using it to denote their own particular meaning, thus creating an ambiguity in the word continuity. Domhoff’s title, “Invasion of the concept snatchers . . .” (2017), suggests that something has been taken or even stolen. This article asks the following: What does he own? What could be stolen? It suggests that a name change is advisable to clarify the current and any future language issues. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)