The study of biodiversity spans many disciplines and includes data pertaining to species distributions and abundances, genetic sequences, trait measurements, and ecological niches, complemented by information on collection and measurement protocols. A review of the current landscape of metadata standards and ontologies in biodiversity science suggests that existing standards such as the Darwin Core terminology are inadequate for describing biodiversity data in a semantically meaningful and computationally useful way. Existing ontologies, such as the Gene Ontology and others in the Open Biological and Biomedical Ontologies (OBO) Foundry library, provide a semantic structure but lack many of the necessary terms to describe biodiversity data in all its dimensions. In this paper, we describe the motivation for and ongoing development of a new Biological Collections Ontology, the Environment Ontology, and the Population and Community Ontology. These ontologies share the aim of improving data aggregation and integration across the biodiversity domain and can be used to describe physical samples and sampling processes (for example, collection, extraction, and preservation techniques), as well as biodiversity observations that involve no physical sampling. Together they encompass studies of: 1) individual organisms, including voucher specimens from ecological studies and museum specimens, 2) bulk or environmental samples (e.g., gut contents, soil, water) that include DNA, other molecules, and potentially many organisms, especially microbes, and 3) survey-based ecological observations. We discuss how these ontologies can be applied to biodiversity use cases that span genetic, organismal, and ecosystem levels of organization. We argue that if adopted as a standard and rigorously applied and enriched by the biodiversity community, these ontologies would significantly reduce barriers to data discovery, integration, and exchange among biodiversity resources and researchers.

s natural history museums prepare to enter the twenty-first century, much of their core still sits in the 1800s. Despite enormous expansion in collections and exhibits during the past 100 years, many museums still resemble Victorian cabinets of natural history. Many still behave as isolated island endemics undergoing genetic drift, eschewing the hybrid vigor and collaborative power of a community.The future of natural history museums requires saltational doses of the very process we study-evolution. It asks for bold, decisive steps-"convention-busting procedures" in the words of Daniel Seymour (1993), president of Q Systems, Palm Springs, CA-if museums are to fulfill their mission to science and society. The future of natural history museums demands that they not be prisoners of history because, as the saying goes, every time history repeats itself, the price goes up.Natural history museums face a number of fundamental challenges for the twenty-first century. In this paper we address only four:• The challenge of the biodiversity crisis. Museums must immediately harness their vast, authoritative, collectionbased information if the millions of specimens they house are to be relevant to understanding biological diversity and sustaining the earth's plants, animals, microbes, and natural environments.

The phylogenetic relationships of living tarsiers and extinct omomyid primates are critical for deciphering the origin and relationships of primate higher taxa, particularly anthropoids. Three competing phylogenetic hypotheses are: (1) tarsiers are most closely related to early Cenozoic Omomyidae, particularly genera such as Necrolemur from the late Eocene of Europe; (2) tarsiers share a more recent common ancestry with anthropoids than they do with any known omomyid; (3) tarsiers and/or omomyids are most closely related to strepsirhines. The anatomy of four skulls of the early Eocene omomyid Shoshonius cooperi--the first cranial material recovered for this genus--strongly suggests that Shoshonius shares a more recent common ancestry with Tarsius than do either anthropoids or other Eocene omomyids for which cranial anatomy is known. If the primate suborder Haplorhini (anthropoids, omomyids, tarsiids) is monophyletic, the phylogenetic position of Shoshonius requires that anthropoids and Tarsius diverged by at least the early Eocene, some 15 million years before the first appearance of anthropoids in the fossil record.

Biodiversity informatics is a field that is growing rapidly in data infrastructure, tools, and participation by researchers worldwide from diverse disciplines and with diverse, innovative approaches. A recent ‘decadal view’ of the field laid out a vision that was nonetheless restricted and constrained by its European focus. Our alternative decadal view is global, i.e., it sees the worldwide scope and importance of biodiversity informatics as addressing five major, global goals: (1) mobilize existing knowledge; (2) share this knowledge and the experience of its myriad deployments globally; (3) avoid ‘siloing’ and reinventing the tools of knowledge deployment; (4) tackle biodiversity informatics challenges at appropriate scales; and (5) seek solutions to difficult challenges that are strategic.