Petzholdt has not compared his accounts of some fields with easily available bibliographies and therefore fails to include obviously important books. In the field of national bibliographies, Petzholdt chose to pass over many older bibliographies that seemed to him to be no longer useful. Both the Latin and the German editions of Heinrich Pantaleon's rare sixteenth-century German biobibliography could perhaps be dispensed with, and I shall not object to his omission of them.[155] I think he should not have passed over without mention Henning Witte's biobibliographical dictionaries, which are still useful sources of information about obscure seventeenth century writers. To be sure, Witte's _Repertorium biblicum_ is cited (p. 286), but this is the least useful of Witte's books. Petzholdt's account of German regional biobibliographies (pp. 299-322) can only be called superficial. In Robert F. Arnold, _Allgemeine Bücherkunde zur neueren deutschen Literaturgeschichte_,[156] which I have compared only for the first page (the entries extending from Aargau through Bayern), I find twelve books published before 1866 that Petzholdt does not name. If we turn to works of larger scope, one cannot easily find a reason for omitting D'Herbelot, _Bibliothèque orientale_. First published in 1697, improved and enlarged in later editions, and brought up to date by J. T. Zenker's continuation of 1846-1861, it remains the only general account of Oriental studies for its period. Petzholdt neglects to mention the seventeenth-century biobibliographies of Italian and French Orientalists compiled by Paul Colomies and deemed worthy of revision by no less a scholar than J. C. Wolf. With all its faults Namur's _Bibliographie_ could have helped Petzholdt to fill such gaps.