The earliest refutations of this hypothesis were put forth by Suniti Kumar Chatterji, invoking many instances of language contact and influence that have led to the concerns about the practicality of the tree model for Indo-Aryan. Some of Chatterji's evidence was based on the lack of uniformity in many of these feature within the supposed branches; e.g. is found as a development of in the "inner" Rajasthani, Punjabi, and Bhili, as well as universally in the numerals reflecting more general rules of phonological change rather than a division. Masica (1991) enumerates more objections. Grierson did rework the hypothesis to counter these criticisms after conducting the Linguistic Survey of India but Chatterji remained unconvinced.