eleven botanical bibliographies and twelve pages summarizing the Linnean classification seem an unnecessarily generous allotment to that subject. A few pages later San José cites collective works--not bibliographies--that deal with Byzantine history and canon law, but he ordinarily limits himself to bibliographies and biobibliographies. He shows no sense of proportion in the choice of titles. Out of hundreds of regional biobibliographies he chooses one for Naumburg for mention. It can have meant very little to most readers of his book, and he might have omitted it. A "Bibliotheca occulta concionum P. Paulini a S. Joseph" (Rome, 1720) did not deserve three pages or a revision of Antonio León Pinelo, _Epitome_ (an early bibliography of American subjects) five. San José is careless with names and titles. Martin Hancke, the writer of a Silesian biobibliography (p. 528), acquires an Oriental look, when he is called Han Kii. San José's strange medley may yield a curious bit of information now and again, but it need not detain us longer. The last list of books entitled _bibliotheca_ is the _Dissertation sur les bibliothèques_ (1758) by J. D. Durey de Noinville (1683-1768).[119] He does not hold to the purpose announced in the heading "Alphabetical list of both works published under the title of _bibliothèque_ and printed catalogues of collections in France and foreign countries."[120] He offers virtually a bibliography of bibliographies. His use of an asterisk to mark works containing an alphabetical index of authors shows some bibliographical sense, but the lack of a clear plan of selection and organization makes the book unusable. In a hodgepodge of seven hundred and fifty titles--I take the figure from Besterman--Durey de Noinville may list a book according to its author or its subject without any apparent reason for his choice of either method. His knowledge of available bibliographies is entirely inadequate. The accounts of reference books dealing with Belgium, church history and France are scanty,[121] the list of learned journals is almost worthless,[122] and the remarks about journals entitled _Mercure_ exceed somewhat the scope of his enterprise.[123] In addition to these faults Durey de Noinville makes bad mistakes in details.[124] His virtually worthless compilation yields an occasional nugget, but such discoveries are rare.[125] His book is only interesting or important for showing how a bibliography of bibliographies might have grown out of a list of books entitled _bibliotheca_.