The familial placements of Cyrtandromoea Zoll. and Wightia Wall., two small and enigmatic South‐East Asian genera, have long been controversial in Lamiales. Here we adopt a two‐step approach to resolve their phylogenetic relationships. We initially reconstructed a large‐scale phylogeny of Lamiales using six chloroplast markers (atpB, matK, ndhF, psbBTNH, rbcL, and rps4). The results showed that both Cyrtandromoea and Wightiaemerged in the LMPO clade, including Lamiaceae, Mazaceae, Phrymaceae, Paulowniaceae, and Orobanchaceae. Based on the second set of six chloroplast markers (atpB, matK, ndhF, rbcL, rps16, and trnL‐F) and two nuclear ribosomal regions (external transcribed spacer and internal transcribed spacer) for the analyses focusing on the LMPO clade, our results revealed that Cyrtandromoea was consistently nested within Phrymaceae, whereas Wightiawas supported as sister to Phrymaceae by the chloroplast DNA dataset or sister to Paulowniaceae by the nuclear ribosomal DNA dataset. Morphological and anatomical evidence fully supports the inclusion of Cyrtandromoea in Phrymaceae, and an updated tribal classification is done for Phrymaceae with five tribes, that is, Cyrtandromoeeae Bo Li, Bing Liu, Su Liu & Y. H. Tan, trib. nov., Diplaceae Bo Li, Bing Liu, Su Liu & Y. H. Tan, trib. nov., Leucocarpeae, Mimuleae, and Phrymeae. The conflicting phylogenetic position of Wightia indicated by different genome markers results in difficulty placing the genus in either Phrymaceae or Paulowniaceae. Considering the distinct morphological differences between Wightia and other families in the LMPO clade, we here propose a new family, Wightiaceae Bo Li, Bing Liu, Su Liu & Y. H. Tan, fam. nov., to accommodate it, which is the 26th family recognized in Lamiales.