Before I present the star catalog, I want to briefly discuss some of the extant manuscripts. This is because I’ve decided to try to maintain relevant footnotes from Toomer’s translation that discuss variations in coordinates between manuscripts.
In the introduction to his translation, Toomer states that his work was primarily based on the translation Heiberg did into German, published in $1898$. However, Toomer frequently relied upon a manuscript from the Vatican referred to as D below as he believes it to be more “internally consistent” and therefore representing “a sounder tradition” than those of other manuscripts Heiberg prefers.
Furthermore, Toomer referred to numerous extant manuscripts available to him in photographic form. To discuss the variations between them, Toomer has outlined a list of these manuscripts in the introduction and given them abbreviations so they may be quickly referred to in the star catalog. I present them here quoting Toomer as I will be making frequent use of them in the notes1 when I present the star catalog.
In each instance, he presents the source, commentary on the hand2, and the presumed century of writing. Some sources have distinct lineages which also get mentioned.
Greek Manuscripts
A: Parisinus graecus $2389$. Mainly uncial, $9^{th}$ century.
B: Vaticanus graecus $1594$. Minuscule, $9^{th}$ century.
C: Venice $313$. Toomer evidently left the description of this source out of his list although it is referenced frequently in the footnotes.
D: Vaticanus graecus $180$. Several hands, but not, as Heiberg claims (Almagest I, p. V) of the $12^{th}$ century, but rather of the $10^{th}$: see Vatican Catalogue by Mercati and Franchi de’ Cavalieri, I p. $206$. N.G. Wilson has confirmed this dating [to Toomer] by personal inspection (Heiberg himself seems to have changed his opinion later: see Prolegomena LXXIX).
Arabic Manuscripts
Ar: [Toomer has] used the abbreviations ‘Ar’ to refer to the consensus of the Arabic tradition
Is: [Toomer has used] ‘Is’ to [refer to] the consensus of the manuscripts containing the Ishaq-Thabit version
L: Leiden, or $680$. $11^{th}$ century according to Kunitzch, Der Almagest $38$. This is the only surviving manuscript of this version of al-Hajjaj.
T: Tunis, Bibliotheque Nationale, $07116$ (see Kunitzch, Der Almagest $38-40$). Completed October $1085$. The Ishaq-Thabit version, complete.
P: Paris, B.N. ar. $2482$. Completed December $1221$. See Kunitzch, Der Almagest $42-3$. The Isaq-Thabit version, Books I-VI $13$.
Q: Paris, B.N. ar. $2483$. $15^{th}$ century. See Kunitzsch, Der Almagest $43$. The Ishaq-Thabit version. Books I-VII.
E: Escorial $914$. See Kunitzsch, Der Almagest $43-4$. The Ishaq-Thabit version, Books V-IX.
F: Escorial $915$. Completed September $1276$. See Kunitzsch, Der Almagest $44-5$. The Ishaq-Thabit version, allegedly containing Books VII-XIII, but in fact lacking large sections even of these, and bound in such disorder as to be almost useless.
Ger: The Latin translation of Gerard of Cremona, for which [Toomer has] used only the printed edition (Venice, Liechtenstein, $1515$). For the complex dependence of this on the various Arabic versions, see Kunitzsch, Der Almagest $97-104$.
In addition to extant manuscripts, there are a few other sources to which Toomer makes reference. We have already mentioned Heiberg.
Another source is Peters & Knobel’s $1915$ work Ptolemy’s Catalogue of Stars. This is abbreviated P-K.
Toomer also frequently makes reference to Karl Manitius. This likely refers to his $1913$ work Ptolemy: Handbook of Astronomy (.pdf – German). However, Toomer’s bibliography also refers to another work of Manitius, Observations of Fixed Stars in Antiquity.