Plant traits—the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants—determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait‐based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits—almost complete coverage for ‘plant growth form’. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait–environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects. We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives.

The genusCentroptellaBraasch & Soldán, 1980 is accepted here in a wide sense, i.e., includingChoprallaWaltz & McCafferty, 1987. This genus concept is similar to the concept of the genusBungonaHarker, 1957 proposed by Salles et al. (2016), but with the generic nameCentroptellainstead ofBungona. The type species ofBungona,B. narillaHarker, 1957, has an unknown systematic position; the neotype designation proposed by Suter and Pearson (2001) is invalid, being inconsistent with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature; the species nameB. narillaand the generic nameBungonaarenomina dubia, so the nameCentroptellais the senior name for the genus under consideration. The generic namesChoprallaandCrassolusSalles, Gattolliat & Sartori, 2016 both are junior synonyms ofCentroptella(syn. nov.). The subgeneraBungona,CentroptellaandChoprallaproposed by Salles et al. (2016) are unnatural. The following new combinations are proposed:Centroptella bintang(Marle, Salles & Gattolliat, 2016)comb. nov.,Centroptella bifida(Shi & Tong, 2019)comb. nov.,Centroptella fusina(Tong & Dudgeon, 2003)comb. nov.,Centroptella fustipalpus(Lugo-Ortiz & McCafferty, 1998)comb. nov.,Centroptella illiesi(Lugo-Ortiz & McCafferty, 1998)comb. nov.,Centroptella inzingae(Crass, 1947)comb. nov.,Centroptella papilionodes(Marle, Salles & Gattolliat, 2016)comb. nov.,Centroptella pontica(Sroka, Godunko & Gattolliat, in Sroka et al. 2019)comb. nov.,Centroptella ovata(Shi & Tong, 2019)comb. nov.,Centroptella quadrata(Shi & Tong, 2019)comb. nov.andCentroptella saxophila(Agnew, 1961)comb. nov.The two Australian species,C. fustipalpusandC. illiesi, differ from each other in the shape of tergalii; corrections to the original description ofC. fustipalpusare given based on re-examination of the holotype and paratypes; details of larval structures ofC. illiesiare figured. Corrections to the former descriptions of the South African speciesC. inzingaeandC. saxophilaare given. Examination of type material led to the discovery that the original description of the Oriental speciesCentroptella liebenauaeSoldán, Braasch & Muu, 1987 was based on two different species: the descriptions of imago and subimago belong toCentroptella longisetosaBraasch & Soldán, 1980 (the type species ofCentroptella), and the description of larva belongs to a different species, which we describe here asCentroptella ingridaesp. nov.The holotype ofC. liebenauae, a larva, should be considered lost; based on the date of collection, it belonged toC. longisetosa; a set of larval exuviae with the same collecting data as the holotype, is designated as the neotype ofC. liebenauae, and a new synonymy is established:C. longisetosa=C. liebenauaesyn. nov.The larvae originally assigned toC. liebenauaeare placed to a new speciesCentroptella ingridaesp. nov.belonging to theinzingae-ingridaespecies group; all stages of development of this species are described based on male and female imagines reared from larvae in Thailand and on the misidentified paratypes ofC. liebenauaefrom Vietnam.Centroptella longisetosais redescribed based on the single paratype from China, the neotype and paratypes ofC. liebenauaefrom Vietnam, and additional material from India. Additional data on the holotype ofCentroptella colorataSoldán, Braasch & Muu, 1987 are given.

Detailed knowledge of the geographic distribution of cytotypes is a prerequisite for any experimental or molecular study of ploidy-variable plant syst