Abstract.  This paper reports the conclusions of studies into the phylogeny of tachyporine group subfamilies and the ‘basal’ lineages of the subfamily Aleocharinae (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) based on both larval and adult morphological data (133 adult characters, twenty‐seven larval characters). Representatives of forty species of the tachyporine group were used in the analysis, including representatives of the Aleocharinae, Trichophyinae, Habrocerinae, Phloeocharinae, Olisthaerinae, and Tachyporinae. The Aleocharinae included representatives of the tribes Gymnusini, Deinopsini, Mesoporini, the ‘subfamily’ Trichopseniinae, and representatives of nine major tribes in the ‘higher’ Aleocharinae (Athetini, Hoplandriini, Falagriini, Lomechisini, Oxypodini, Aleocharini, Myllaenini, Homalotini, and Hypocyphtini). Analyses were performed first with adult characters alone and then with both larval and adult characters in a simultaneous analysis. The analysis based on adult characters produced eighty‐five equally parsimonious trees (length = 499, consistency index = 42; retention index = 69). In the consensus tree, the Tachyporinae are not monophyletic, and the sister‐group relationship between the Trichophyinae + Habrocerinae and the Aleocharinae is not resolved. The Aleocharinae are monophyletic, but, among the ‘basal’ Aleocharinae, the relationships of Gymnusini + Deinopsini, the Mesoporini, and the Trichopseniinae are unresolved. The combined adult and larval data, using Tachinus as the outgroup, produced six equally parsimonious trees (tree length = 588; consistency index = 43; retention index = 69). The strict consensus tree of the combined larval and adult data supports the following conclusions: (1) larval characters substantially stabilize the tree; (2) the subfamily Tachyporinae is not supported to be monophyletic; (3) the subfamilies Trichophyinae and Habrocerinae are sister groups, and together they are sister to the Aleocharinae; (4) the ‘basal’ Aleocharinae are not a monophyletic group, but the ‘higher’ Aleocharinae are monophyletic; (5) the sister group of the remaining Aleocharinae is a lineage made up of genera currently in the tribes Gymnusini and Deinopsini; (6) within the Gymnusini–Deinopsini lineage, the monophyly of the Gymnusini is weakly supported, but the monophyly of the Deinopsini is strongly supported; (7) the subfamily Trichopseniinae is strongly supported to be a member of the ‘basal’ Aleocharinae; (8) the Myllaenini are resolved well within the ‘higher’ Aleocharinae; (9) strong support for the monophyly of some tribes of ‘higher’ Aleocharinae suggests that morphological characters provide substantial phylogenetic signal for analysis of higher‐level phylogeny of the Aleocharinae in spite of the preliminary nature of the analysis at this taxonomic level.

Abstract. Larvae of the staphylinid subfamily Trichophyinae are described for the first time based on larvae of a new species of Trichophya from the southwestern United States. Adults and larvae of the new species, Trichophya texana Ashe & Newton (type locality Texas, Brewster Co., Big Bend National Park), are described and illustrations of both provided. Also given are a key for separation of the Nearctic species of Trichophya, a checklist of the known World fauna of the Trichophyinae (including first report of the genus from Mexico and Guatemala), and a characterization of the subfamily Trichophyinae based on both larvae and adults. The relationships of major genera and higher taxa in the tachyporine group of staphylinid subfamilies are analysed cladistically using larval characters. No larval characters were found that provide evidence for the monophyly of the tachyporine group; no evidence was found for the monophyly of the Tachyporinae; Charhyphus, Olisthaerus and Phloeocharis (Phloeocharinae + Olisthaerinae) form a monophyletic group; the Trichophyinae and Habrocerinae are sister groups and together probably are the sister group to the Aleocharinae; the Aleocharinae are confirmed to be monophyletic based on larval characters; and Gymnusa + Deinopsis form the sister group to the remainder of the Aleocharinae.

A cladistic analysis of the tribe Myllaenini Ganglbauer and related genera is presented. Monophyly of the Myllaenini is tested, and the tribe is hypothesized to be a monophyletic group consisting of nine genera (Myllaena Erichson, Amazonopora Pace, Dimonomera Cameron, Bryothinusa Casey, Philomina Blackwelder, Polypea Fauvel, Brachypronomaea Sawada, Rothium Moore and Legner, and Lautaea Sawada), based on the synapomorphy of antero-lateral angles of mentum prolonged into spinose processes. A history of the classification of the Myllaenini is discussed. The data set for phylogenetic analysis comprised 99 characters representing 297 character states derived from adult morphology. The analysis agrees on the monophyly of the Myllaenini and the monophyly of the Pronomaeini Ganglbauer (Pronomaea Erichson, Pseudomniophila Pace, Nopromaea Cameron and Tomoxelia Bernhauer). The tribe Dimonomerini (Dimonomera Cameron) is confirmed to be a member of the Myllaenini. Masuriini is a possible sister group of the Myllaenini. Stylopalpus Cameron shows a sister group relationship to the Pronomaeini. Several other clades are also consistently recovered. However, the phylogenetic relationships of the genus Dysacrita are ambiguous. The rogue genus Diglotta Champion is not recovered as a member of the Myllaenini or Pronomaeini. On the contrary, it forms a monophyletic clade with the liparocephaline genera Halorhadinus Sawada and Amblopusa Casey. Evolution of the defensive gland on abdominal tergite VII among aleocharine lineages is reconsidered, and the origin of an intertidal habitat in the Myllaenini is discussed.