The catalogues of Phillips and Winstanley are, as their titles state, not primarily play lists, and their importance to a discussion of dramatic bibliographies resides solely in the use made of them by Langbaine. Two hundred and fifty-two British poets are named in Phillips' _Theatrum Poetarum_. Of these some one hundred and sixty-nine were authors of plays. The titlepage of Winstanley's _Lives_ advertises an account "of above Two Hundred" poets, but "147 are actually listed in the catalogue, and only 168 are noted throughout."[3] Four hundred and sixty-seven plays by sixty authors are included. From Phillips' collection Winstanley omits the thirty-three Scottish poets and sixty-eight English poets. William Riley Parker believes that most of Winstanley's omissions were deliberate and that his "endeavor, unlike Phillips', was to give a chronological survey of English poetry from Robert of Gloucester down to Sir Roger L'Estrange."[4] Parker defines the differing contributions of the two men in the following manner: Phillips is more the bibliographer and cataloguer, collecting names and titles; Winstanley is the amateur literary historian, seeking out the verse itself, arranging it in chronological order, and trying to pass judgment upon it.[5] As a bibliographer Phillips was exceedingly inaccurate and "the _Theatrum_ was a hasty, careless piece of hack work," whose convenience was seriously damaged by a poor organization which alphabetizes the poets in four sections by their first names, with no last name index. His source materials were of the easiest and most superficial kind.[6] Both Phillips and Winstanley misunderstood Kirkman's method of listing anonymous plays and this, as Langbaine notes in the Preface to _Momus_, led "_both these charitable kind Gentlemen_" to find "_Fathers for them, by ranking each under the Authors Name that preceded them in the former Catalogues_"([A3r]).[7]