Mites and ticks can be divided into two well-defined clades, Anactinotrichida and Actinotrichida, for which a recent work formalized a suite of putative autapomorphies and reciprocal differences. Whether they are sister-taxa – forming a monophyletic Acari – is more controversial. Earlier supporters of two independent origins for mites largely failed to demonstrate convincing synapomorphies between either of the two lineages and other arachnid orders; although recent work on reproductive biology revealed explicit characters of this nature. Furthermore, some of the characters proposed in support of a monophyletic Acari do not stand up to detailed scrutiny when compared with Arachnida in general. Effective morphological comparisons between mites and other arachnids are hindered by incompatible nomenclature and long-standing, mite-specific characters which are difficult to score for other arachnids. Furthermore, taxon-specific characters restricted to individual mite groups have sometimes been treated erroneously as ÔtypicalÕ for all Acari. Here, previous hypotheses of mite affinities are reviewed. Historically, authors have debated whether mites are basal arachnids or highly derived. Excluding weakly supported early hypotheses, mites have been resolved – in whole or in part – as sister-group of all other Arachnida (based on tagmosis), closely related to Opiliones (based mostly on genital morphology), Palpigradi (based on controversial interpretations of limb morphology), Solifugae (based mostly on the mouthparts, but now perhaps also reproductive characters) and Ricinulei (based on hexapodal larvae and perhaps mouthparts). We cannot provide a final resolution here, but we aim to highlight important character sets which should be included in subsequent phylogenetic analyses, as well as useful areas for future investigations: particularly tagmosis and the nature of the gnathosoma.