In the fifty years between the publication of Gesner's _Pandectae_ and Spach's _Nomenclator_ bibliographers had come to recognize the value of several kinds of compilations that Gesner had not chosen to include. For example, Spach cites the catalogues issued by publishers,[45] a category that Gesner knew but separated from his bibliography of bibliographies. He includes some titles that most bibliographers would not now include in a bibliography of bibliographies, for example, a book dealing with the book trade,[46] a book dealing with a particular library,[47] a famous catalogue of Greek manuscripts at Augsburg.[48] Titles such as Wolfgang Lazius, _Catalogus partim suorum, partim aliorum scriptorum_[49] do not indicate clearly the contents of the book. Spach has thrown his net wide and has caught some fish that we can not call bibliographies. Nevertheless, all the works that he cites deal with books, and we shall not quarrel with him for including treatises on the Frankfurt book fair or the Vatican library. Two titles show how widely he ranged in the search for materials. John Boston's fourteenth-century union catalogue of manuscripts owned in England has come to his knowledge,[50] and he has picked up Claudius Ptolemy, _Sententiae sive de utilitate librorum_,[51] which was, in one form or another, a popular book about books during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Spach's omission of regional or national bibliographies and biobibliographical dictionaries, except for Bale and Doni, and of biobibliographical dictionaries of the religious orders is obvious. Perhaps he regarded them as historical rather than bibliographical reference works. As we have seen, Spach offers a good account of sixteenth-century bibliographies and especially of those published in the latter half of the century. When taken in conjunction with Gesner's earlier bibliography, which reviewed classical writers and his own contemporaries, Spach's list provides us with a good account of sixteenth-century bibliography.