The first insect genome assembly (Drosophila melanogaster) was published two decades ago. Today, nuclear genome assemblies are available for a staggering 601 insect species representing 20 orders. In this study, we analyzed the most-contiguous assembly for each species and provide a "state-of-the-field" perspective, emphasizing taxonomic representation, assembly quality, gene completeness, and sequencing technologies. Relative to species richness, genomic efforts have been biased toward four orders (Diptera, Hymenoptera, Collembola, and Phasmatodea), Coleoptera are underrepresented, and 11 orders still lack a publicly available genome assembly. The average insect genome assembly is 439.2 Mb in length with 87.5% of single-copy benchmarking genes intact. Most notable has been the impact of long-read sequencing; assemblies that incorporate long reads are ∼48× more contiguous than those that do not. We offer four recommendations as we collectively continue building insect genome resources: 1) seek better integration between independent research groups and consortia, 2) balance future sampling between filling taxonomic gaps and generating data for targeted questions, 3) take advantage of long-read sequencing technologies, and 4) expand and improve gene annotations.

DNA barcoding was intended as a means to provide species-level identifications through associating DNA sequences from unknown specimens to those from curated reference specimens. Although barcodes were not designed for phylogenetics, they can be beneficial to the completion of the Tree of Life. The barcode database for Trichoptera is relatively comprehensive, with data from every family, approximately two-thirds of the genera, and one-third of the described species. Most Trichoptera, as with most of life's species, have never been subjected to any formal phylogenetic analysis. Here, we present a phylogeny with over 16 000 unique haplotypes as a working hypothesis that can be updated as our estimates improve. We suggest a strategy of implementing constrained tree searches, which allow larger datasets to dictate the backbone phylogeny, while the barcode data fill out the tips of the tree. We also discuss how this phylogeny could be used to focus taxonomic attention on ambiguous species boundaries and hidden biodiversity. We suggest that systematists continue to differentiate between 'Barcode Index Numbers' (BINs) and 'species' that have been formally described. Each has utility, but they are not synonyms. We highlight examples of integrative taxonomy, using both barcodes and morphology for species description.This article is part of the themed issue 'From DNA barcodes to biomes'.