We live in the golden age of biodiversity data. DNA sequencing, digitised herbaria, global databases, and citizen science now generate information at a pace unimaginable a few decades ago [1–3]. Platforms such as GBIF and GenBank contain billions of occurrence records and vast genetic datasets [4,5]. However, this abundance contrasts with slow progress in generating essential biodiversity knowledge: species discovery still takes decades [6,7], information on many species remains limited [8], and tropical diversity is still largely invisible to conservation efforts [9–11]. Data proliferates while taxonomy lags behind. Despite repeated appeals to strengthen it [12–15], the pace of taxonomic progress has barely changed [16,17]. In other words, modern science generates data faster than taxonomy can absorb it.

This gap stems partly from fragmentation. The four main questions that define systematics —what an organism is (taxonomy), where it fits on the tree of life (evolution), when it originated (time), and where it occurs (biogeography)— are usually addressed separately, producing partial answers that unfold successively rather than concurrently [18–20]. To overcome this, modern biodiversity research must integrate these dimensions, with taxonomy as the axis linking names, evolutionary relationships, temporal origins, and spatial patterns. Taxonomy must therefore expand to match the scale and speed of modern data, from a reactive discipline into the structural framework through which all other questions are resolved.

Simultaneous to this progressive detachment between data and taxonomy, and equally worrying detachment between taxonomy and other biodiversity sciences is becoming irreversible, promoted by the "Illusion of knowledge" generated by big data. Studies benefitting from access to data in global databases often ignore that the very source of the data that feeds into these repositories, i.e., physical specimens housed in herbaria and museums worldwide, have often never been studied by experts, resulting in outdated identifications or plainly wrong names.

Over the last years, I have become progressively aware of these problems while worrying myself, as a human being, for the development of social events, widespread fragmentation and opposition to scientific knowledge and education in different parts of the world. As teachers, we have the responsibility to contribute to a better-informed, science-aware society. As scientists, we must accelerate the speed at which biodiversity is studied, species discovered and communities understood. As taxonomists, we can no longer work in isolation; we must engage with the rest of biodiversity sciences not as a subsidiary, "stamp-collecting" discipline, but as a thriving science able to lead projects that address global research questions. We know the organisms that are the focus of nature research. No one better to lead research on them.