We examined global records of accessible natural history voucher collections (with publicly available data and reliable locality data) for terrestrial and freshwater vascular plants, fungi, freshwater fishes, birds, mammals, and herpetofauna (amphibians and reptiles) and highlight areas of the world that would be considered undersampled and sometimes called ‘unexplored’ (i.e., have relatively low, or no evidence of, past sampling efforts) under typical Western-scientific descriptions. We also question what ‘unexplored’ may mean in these contexts and explain how replacing the term in favor of more nuanced phrasing (e.g., ‘biodiversity blindspots,’ which emphasizes the lack of publicly available data about specimens) can mitigate future misunderstandings of natural history science. We also highlight geographic regions where there are relatively few or no publicly available natural history records to raise awareness about habitats that might be worthy of future natural history research and conservation. A major finding is that many of the areas that appear ‘unexplored’ may be in countries whose collections are not digitized (i.e., they don’t have metadata such as GPS coordinates about their voucher specimens publicly available). We call for museums to prioritize digitizing those collections from these ‘biodiversity blindspots’ and for increased funding for museums to aid in these efforts. We also argue for increased scientific infrastructure so that more reference collections with vouchers can be kept in the countries of origin (particularly those countries lacking such infrastructure currently).

We examined global records of accessible natural history voucher collections (with publicly available data) for terrestrial and freshwater vascular plants, fungi, freshwater fishes, birds, mammals, and herpetofauna (amphibians and reptiles) and highlight areas of the world that would be considered undersampled and sometimes called “unexplored” ( i . e ., have relatively low, or no evidence of, past sampling efforts) under typical Western-scientific descriptions. We also question what “unexplored” may actually mean in these contexts and explain how retiring the term in favor of more nuanced phrasing can mitigate future misunderstandings of natural history science.### Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.

AbstractPremiseRubiaceae is among the most species‐rich plant families, as well as one of the most morphologically and geographically diverse. Currently available phylogenies have mostly relied on few genomic and plastid loci, as opposed to large‐scale genomic data. Target enrichment provides the ability to generate sequence data for hundreds to thousands of phylogenetically informative, single‐copy loci, which often leads to improved phylogenetic resolution at both shallow and deep taxonomic scales; however, a publicly accessible Rubiaceae‐specific probe set that allows for comparable phylogenetic inference across clades is lacking.MethodsHere, we use publicly accessible genomic resources to identify putatively single‐copy nuclear loci for target enrichment in two Rubiaceae groups: tribe Hillieae (Cinchonoideae) and tribal complex Palicoureeae+Psychotrieae (Rubioideae). We sequenced 2270 exonic regions corresponding to 1059 loci in our target clades and generated in silico target enrichment sequences for other Rubiaceae taxa using our designed probe set. To test the utility of our probe set for phylogenetic inference across Rubiaceae, we performed a coalescent‐aware phylogenetic analysis using a subset of 27 Rubiaceae taxa from 10 different tribes and three subfamilies, and one outgroup in Apocynaceae.ResultsWe recovered an average of 75% and 84% of targeted exons and loci, respectively, per Rubiaceae sample. Probes designed using genomic resources from a particular subfamily were most efficient at targeting sequences from taxa in that subfamily. The number of paralogs recovered during assembly varied for each clade. Phylogenetic inference of Rubiaceae with our target regions resolves relationships at various scales. Relationships are largely consistent with previous studies of relationships in the family with high support (≥0.98 local posterior probability) at nearly all nodes and evidence of gene tree discordance.DiscussionOur probe set, which we call Rubiaceae2270x, was effective for targeting loci in species across and even outside of Rubiaceae. This probe set will facilitate phylogenomic studies in Rubiaceae and advance systematics and macroevolutionary studies in the family.

Most plants rely on specialized root-associated microbes to obtain essential nitrogen (N), yet not much is known about the evolutionary history of the rhizosphere–plant interaction. We conducted a common garden experiment to investigate the plant root–rhizosphere microbiome association using chloridoid grasses sampled from around the world and grown from seed in a greenhouse. We sought to test whether plants that are more closely related phylogenetically have more similar root bacterial microbiomes than plants that are more distantly related. Using metagenome sequencing, we found that there is a conserved core and a variable rhizosphere bacterial microbiome across the chloridoid grasses. Additionally, phylogenetic distance among the host plant species was correlated with bacterial community composition, suggesting the plant hosts prefer specific bacterial lineages. The functional potential for N utilization across microbiomes fluctuated extensively and mirrored variation in the microbial community composition across host plants. Variation in the bacterial potential for N fixation was strongly affected by the host plants’ phylogeny, whereas variation in N recycling, nitrification, and denitrification was unaffected. This study highlights the evolutionary linkage between the N fixation traits of the microbial community and the plant host and suggests that not all functional traits are equally important for plant–microbe associations.