KennedyE. S., “A Survey of Islamic Astronomical Tables”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, xlvi, pt 2 (1956), 173.
2.
Ibid., no. 81, p. 135.
3.
PuseyE. B., Bibliothecae Bodleianae codicum manuscriptorum orientalium catalogi partis secundae volumen secundum arabicos complectens (Oxford, 1835), 242, no. 274.
4.
For a brief history of this controversy see NeugebauerO., The exact sciences in Antiquity (2nd ed., Providence, 1957), 206–7; and SuterHeinrich, Die Mathematiker und Astronomen der Araber und Ihre Werke (Abhand. Gesch. Math. Wiss., x (1900)), 71f.
5.
Suter, op. cit., 145 and Kennedy, op. cit., 133.
6.
Kennedy, op. cit., 133–4.
7.
We use here the terminology adopted by Neugebauer, op. cit., Appendix I. We will also use capital letters to designate similar functions tabulated by Cyriacus.
8.
KennedyE. S. and SalamH., “Solar and Lunar Tables in Early Islamic Astronomy”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, lxxxvii (1967), 492–7.
9.
KingDavid, “A Double Argument Table for the Lunar Equation Attributed to Ibn Yunus”, Centaurus, xviii (1974), 129–46.
10.
JensenClaus, “The Lunar Theories of Al-Baghdādī”, Archive for history of exact sciences, viii (1972), 321–8.
11.
TichenorMark, “Late Medieval Two-Argument Tables for Planetary Longitudes”, Journal of Near Eastern studies, xxvi, pt 2 (1967), 126–8.
12.
PingreeDavid, “Gregory Chioniades and Palaeologan Astronomy”, Dumbarton Oaks papers, xviii (1964), 133–60; and NeugebauerO., “Studies in Byzantine Astronomical Terminology”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 1, pt 2 (1960), 1–45, esp. pp. 19f.
