A phylogenetic analysis for the Cimicomorpha was conducted using 92 taxa, including eight outgroups and six species of Thaumastocoridae. Density of taxon sampling allows for tests of relationships at the family level for most taxa, whereas in the Miridae denser sampling allows for doing so on the tribal level. This level of sampling also corresponds with the availability of testable published hypotheses of relationships. Morphological data for 73 characters are coded for all taxa. Approximately 3500 base pairs of DNA were sequenced for the following gene regions for 83 taxa: 16S rDNA, 18S rDNA, 28S rDNA and COI. Results are presented for analysis of morphological data, individual molecular partitions, combined molecular data, combined morphological and molecular data for 83 taxa and combined morphological and molecular data for 92 taxa. Analyses of morphological data were performed using the parsimony programs nona and piwe: molecular and combined data were analysed using direct optimization with the program poy. Major conclusions of the present study include recognition of the following monophyletic groups: The Geocorisae is a monophyletic group. The monophyly of the Cimicomorpha – including Thaumastocoridae – is not supported in most analyses. The Reduviidae is monophyletic, with the Phymatinae Complex being the sister‐group of the remaining subfamilies. The circumscription of the Cimiciformes is altered from the prior conception of Schuh and Štys to also include the Joppeicidae, Microphysidae and Velocipedidae, as well as the recently described family Curaliidae; the monophyly of the Cimiciformes is supported in most analyses; the Cimiciformes is treated as the sister‐group of the Miroidea in most analyses. The monophyly of the Cimicoidea, including Curaliidae, is supported in all analyses including molecular data, whereas Curaliidae is treated as a more basal cimiciform in all other analyses. The monophyly and placement of the Thaumastocoridae is ambiguous across the range of analyses, and the monophyly of the Miroidea sensu Schuh and Štys receives limited support in the combined analyses of morphology + molecular data. The Tingidae and Miridae are each monophyletic and together almost invariably form a monophyletic group. Within the Miridae, several inclusive monophyletic groups at the subfamily/tribal level are more or less consistently recognized when molecular data are included; however, the interrelationships of the subfamilies vary substantially across the range of analyses. Of the individual molecular partitions, only 18S rDNA shows significant congruence with combined analyses of morphological, combined molecular or combined morphological and molecular data. Scenarios are discussed for the evolution of the metathoracic scent‐efferent system and the origin of the fossula spongiosa.

The monophyly of the 7 infraorders of Heteroptera and history of higher group concepts and interrelationships within the Heteroptera are briefly reviewed. Data from 31 morphological characters are combined with 669 bases of 18S nuclear rDNA for 29 taxa, including several outgroups to the Heteroptera, to produce a phylogeny based on the total available evidence. The molecular data alone and in conjunction with morphological data indicate that: the Homoptera are probably not monophyletic; the Auchenorrhyncha are the sister group of Coleorrhyncha + Heteroptera ; the Enicocephalomorpha are the sister group of remaining Heteroptera; the Dipsocoromorpha are the sister group of remaining Heteroptera; the Gerromorpha are the sister group of remaining Heteroptera; the Nepomorpha are the sister group of remaining Heteroptera; the Leptopodomorpha are the sister group of the Cimicomorpha + Pentatomomorpha. The molecular evidence corroborates the morphologically based theory of a sister group relationship between Aradoidea and trichophoran Pentatomomorpha. This scheme deviates from that previously published by Schuh, in which the Leptopodomorpha were treated as the sister group of the Nepomorpha.

The Miridae, a hyperdiverse family containing more than 11,020 valid described species, are discussed and the pertinent literature is reviewed. Diagnoses for the family and subfamilies are given. Color habitus photos are presented for representatives of most of the 35 currently recognized tribes. Key morphological character systems are discussed and illustrated, including pretarsal structures, femoral trichobothria, external efferent system of the metathoracic glands, male and female genitalia, and molecular markers. A historical comparison of tribal classifications and the most up-to-date classification are presented in tabular form. A brief history of the classification of each of the eight recognized subfamilies is presented. Distributional patterns and relative generic diversity across biogeographic regions are discussed; generic diversity by biogeographic region is presented in tabular form. Taxonomic accumulation graphs are presented by biogeographic region, indicating an ongoing need for taxonomic work in the Southern Hemisphere, and most particularly in Australia. Host plant associations are evaluated graphically, showing high specificity for many taxa and a preference among phytophagous taxa for the Asteridae and Rosidae.

Phylogenetic relationships within the Pentatomoidea are investigated through the coding and analysis of character data derived from morphology and DNA sequences. In total, 135 terminal taxa were investigated, representing most of the major family groups; 84 ingroup taxa are coded for 57 characters in a morphological matrix. As many as 3500 bp of DNA data are adduced for each of 52 terminal taxa, including 44 ingroup taxa, comprising the 18S rRNA, 16S rRNA, 28S rRNA, and COI gene regions. Character data are analysed separately and in the form of a total evidence analysis. Major conclusions of the phylogenetic analysis include: the concept of Urostylididae is restricted to that of earlier authors; the Saileriolinae is raised to family rank and treated as the sister group of all Pentatomoidea exclusive of Urostylididae sensu stricto; a broadly conceived Cydnidae, as recognized by Dolling, 1981, is not supported; the placement of Thaumastellidae within the Pentatomoidea is affirmed and the taxon is recognized at family rank rather than as a subfamily of Cydnidae, although its exact phylogenetic position within the Pentatomoidea remains equivocal; the Parastrachiinae is treated as also including Dismegistus Amyot & Serville and placed within a broadly conceived Corimelaenidae, the latter group being treated at family rank; the family-group taxa Dinidoridae and Tessaratomidae probably represent a monophyletic group, but the recognition of monophyletic subgroups will benefit from additional representation in the sequence data set; and the Lestoniidae is treated as the sister group of the Acanthosomatidae. The Acanthosomatidae and Scutelleridae are consistently recovered as monophyletic. The monophyly of the Pentatomidae appears unequivocal, inclusive of the Aphylinae and Cyrtocorinae, on the basis of morphology, the latter two taxa not being represented in the molecular data set.

Heteroptera, or true bugs, are part of the most successful radiation of nonholometabolous insects. Twenty-five years after the first review on the influence of cladistics on systematic research in Heteroptera, we summarize progress, problems, and future directions in the field. The few hypotheses on infraordinal relationships conflict on crucial points. Understanding relationships within Gerromorpha, Nepomorpha, Leptopodomorpha, Cimicomorpha, and Pentatomomorpha is improving, but progress within Enicocephalomorpha and Dipsocoromorpha is lagging behind. Nonetheless, the classifications of several superfamily-level taxa within the Pentatomomorpha, such as Aradoidea, Coreoidea, and Pyrrhocoroidea, are still unaffected by cladistic studies. Progress in comparative morphology is slow and drastically impedes our understanding of the evolution of major clades. Molecular systematics has dramatically contributed to accelerating the generation and testing of hypotheses. Given the fascinating natural history of true bugs and their status as model organisms for evolutionary studies, integration of cladistic analyses in a broader biogeographic and evolutionary context deserves increased attention.