I sometimes joke that you should never read your own papers once they are published, because you will undoubtedly find something you wish you had written differently. Case in point, a paper of ours that is soon to come out in which we said:

As might be expected, the Drosophila melanogaster genome was among the earliest to be sequenced for a metazoan (behind only Caenorhabditis elegans) and was the first to be completed using the now-standard whole genome shotgun approach (Adams et al., 2000; Celniker et al., 2002).  Although genome sequences are available for other pairs of related species (e.g., the rodents Mus musculus and Rattus norvegicus and the pufferfishes Takifugu rubripes and Tetraodon nigriviridis), the recently completed sequence of D. pseudoobscura (Richards et al., 2005) made Drosophila the first genus to be represented by multiple species. These have since been joined by 10 additional species: D. ananassae, D. erecta, D. grimshawi, D. mojavensis, D. persimilis, D. sechellia, D. simulans, D. virilis, D. willistoni, and D. yakuba (Ashburner 2007; Crosby et al. 2007; Drosophila 12 Genomes Consortium 2007; Gilbert 2007).

We were discussing animals, so the fact that multiple strains of bacteria of the same species have been covered isn't the issue.  However, we did not mention the fact that  Caenorhabditis elegans (The C. elegans Sequencing Consortium 1998) and C. briggsae (Gupta et al. 2003) both have been done.  No offence to the nematode people -- we were simply trying to make a point in the intro that Drosophila is now the best sampled genus in terms of genome sequences.