Widely distributed in Guineo‐Congolian forests, the genus Hybomys is represented by two species complexes (univittatus and trivirgatus), each restricted to one distinct forest block. In the last revision, these two species complexes were considered as distinct subgenera (Hybomys and Typomys). Previous morphological and karyological studies identified an important divergence between these two subgenera and raised the question of their taxonomic status (subgenus or genus). The number of species within this genus is also a matter of discussion: nine forms were described but only six (H. badius, H. basilii, H. lunaris, H. planifrons, H. trivirgatus, and H. univitttatus) are currently recognized as distinct species, the three others (H. pearcei, H. eisentrauti, and H. rufocanus) being considered as synonyms. The monophyly of the genus and its species have never been previously investigated with DNA sequence data. In this study, we combined mitochondrial and nuclear data (for a total of 3,264 nucleotide characters) to test the monophyly of Hybomys and to assess the specific status of H. eisentrauti and H. rufocanus. Our results highlight the paraphyly of the genus: members of the H. univittatus species complex appeared closely related to the genera Stochomys and Dephomys; representatives of H. trivirgatus are the sister clade of the node grouping Stochomys, Dephomys and member of the H. univittatus species complex. Combined with previous morphological findings, our results suggest that Typomys and Hybomys should be considered as two distinct genera. Based on tree topology and genetic distances, we propose to consider H. rufocanus as a valid species, distinct from H. univittaus, and to consider H. badius and H. eisentrauti as junior synonyms of H. rufocanus.