Chen Yin-ko used to comment: "The Qing Dynasty was known as the heyday in classical studies, but in history studies was far inferior to the Song Dynasty." in Preface of Western and central Asians in China under the Mongols: their transformation into Chinese=[Yuan xi yu ren Hua hua kao] This comment caused many discussions and the explanations among academic circles. Some said Chen's comment was truly accurate, that philology could not be regarded as the highest achievement of history. Some said Chen was drawing conclusions from a part just to conclude history studies in Qing Dynasty by philology. Some observed that Chen in the Chinese historiography always esteems Song Dynasty to belittle the Qing Dynasty. This is one of the very many illustrations. Some commented that the Chen's history concept was straightly received from Song virtuously, not have much relations with the scholars under Ch'ien-lung and Chia-ch'ing Period. Of Qing Dynasty, this is also may be proved. Some remarked that Chen's history concept has no alternative but to: receive the influences of scholars in philological methods under Ch'ien-lung and Chia-ch'ing Period, he only made some progress. There were numerous discussions about it. This kind of discussion not only involves with the understanding of Chen Yin-ko's studies, also impacts the appraisal of the Qing Dynasty historic studies. This article divides the question, which involves on these two aspects into four groups. (1) Unscramble the "Preface of Western and central Asians in China under the Mongols: their transformation into Chinese=[Yuan xi yu ren Hua hua kao]" (2) The explanations about esteeming Song Dynasty to belittle the Qing Dynasty study view. (3) The argumentations about inheriting the Song virtuous history to belittle the Ch'ien-lung and Chia-ch'ing Period Chinese philology. (4) The ways to appraise Qing Dynasty historic studies, carry on the discussion and express my opinion.