The 10 extant species of emydine turtles represent an array of morphological and ecological forms recognizable and popular among scientists and hobbyists. Nevertheless, the phylogenetic affinities of most emydines remain contentious. Here, we examine the evolutionary relationships of emydine turtles using 2092 bp of DNA encoding the mitochondrial genes cyt b, ND4, and adjacent tRNAs. These data contain 339 parsimony informative characters that we use to erect hypotheses of relationships for the Emydinae. Both maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood methods yield a monophyletic Emydinae in which all but three nodes are well resolved. Emys orbicularis, Emydoidea blandingii, and Clemmys marmorata form a monophyletic clade, as do the species of Terrapene. Clemmys muhlenbergii and Clemmys insculpta form a third monophyletic group that may be sister to all other emydines. Clemmys guttata is problematic and probably related to Terrapene. Based on this phylogeny, and previous molecular work on the group, we suggest the following taxonomic revisions: (1) Clemmys should be restricted to a single species, C. guttata. (2) Calemys should be resurrected for C. muhlenbergii and C. insculpta. (3) Emys should be expanded to include three species: E. orbicularis, E. blandingii, and E. marmorata. Furthermore, our analyses show that neither kinetic-shelled nor akinetic-shelled emydines form monophyletic groups. Therefore, shell kinesis was either independently gained in Emys and Terrapene or secondarily lost in E. marmorata and C. guttata. Parsimony, paleontological evidence, and the multiple origins of shell kinesis in related turtle lineages (especially geoemydines) support the independent origin of plastral kinesis.