Numbers of papers, subjects discussed and major workers on the Phylum Ectoprocta were compiled from the literature published from 1555 to 1963. The average yearly number of papers on ectoprocts increased greatly throughout the Nineteenth Century, stayed about constant from 1900 until after the second world war, and has been increasing modestly since then. Approximately 5500 papers have been written on ectoprocts, of which about 3600 deal with systematics and other biologic topics (excluding ecology); the remainder are on the use of ectoprocts in ecologic or stratigraphic studies. About 75 per cent of the literature is in English (50 per cent), French (15 per cent) and German (10 per cent). Since the limited catalogues published in 1900 and before, no catalogue of the literature on ectoprocts has been prepared. As a consequence, the literature on all aspects of the study of ectoprocts is poorly organized for modern workers. Probably more than any other single publication, a modern Catalogue of Ectoprocta, cross-indexed to taxonomic names and subjects, would lead to greatly increased interest and work on these animals. A journal devoted to all aspects of ectoprocts apparently has a large enough group of potential contributors (more than 100) to be viable. Since 1555, several tens of thousands of pages have been devoted to the study of the Phylum Ectoprocta (Bryozoa or Polyzoa of authors). There has, however, been no general summary of the number of papers in various subfields, major contributors, or languages of publication. And although Price (1963) and others have emphasized the exponential growth of scientific literature, that of systematics and other natural history studies is usually said to be lagging behind that of other fields. A review of the systematic and other literature of one Phylum, the Ectoprocta, can be used to test this assumption. In addition, in examining the growth of a field, it is interesting to see who has been chiefly responsible for it. By comparison of some of the trends in number of papers on ectoprocts with those of other major taxa, namely polychaete annelids, amphipods, and ostracodes, this paper may be of general interest.