The morphology of juvenile stages of Eremaeus cordiformis Grandjean, 1934 is redescribed and illustrated, and those of Eueremaeus laticostulatus Bayartogtokh, 2003 and Proteremaeus punctulatus Bayartogtokh, 2000 are described and illustrated for the first time. The juveniles of these species differ from each other mainly by the presence of distinct prodorsal ridges in the central part of the prodorsum, shape and distribution of some setae, and number of adanal and anal setae. The larva of Er. cordiformis has these ridges, whereas other species lack them. Eueremaeus laticostulatus has relatively long and barbed prodorsal seta in in the larva and most gastronotal setae similarly ornamented in all juveniles, whereas other species have these setae short and smooth. The nymphs of Er. cordiformis and Eu. laticostulatus have three pairs of posterior gastronotal setae (p 1 , h 1 , h 2 ), which are inserted close to each other in transverse row, whereas those of P. punctulatus have only two pairs (p 1 , h 1 ) there, and seta h 2 is inserted far from seta h 1 and closer to seta p 2 . The nymphs of all species lose dorsal gastronotal setae of d-series and carry the exuvial scalps of previous instars directly on the glabrous gastronotum mainly due to lateral folds. The nymphs and adult of P. punctulatus have three pairs of adanal setae and two pairs of anal setae, whereas those of other species have at least five pairs of each series. The adult of Er. cordiformis has 11 pairs of notogastral setae, whereas other species investigated here have 10 pairs. The adults of all species have lamellar costulae on the prodorsum, but in P. punctulatus they are more widely separated than in other species. At present the systematic position of Proteremaeus is controversial in the literature, but the morphology of juveniles and adult of P. punctulatus investigated here confirms the membership of this genus in the Eremaeidae. A number of morphological characters support the separation of Er. hepaticus and Er. cordiformis and we provisionally reject their synonymy, until the type or topotypic material is compared.