Solenopeziaceae sensu Ekanayaka et al. (2019) is based on a clade with no statistical support in their phylogenetic analysis, and includes two phylogenetically divergent sets of genera.

One of these includes Trichopeziza, Trichopezizella, Lasiobelonium, and Solenopezia. Han et al. (2010) and Baral (in Jaklitsch et al. 2016) earlier discussed the possibility of treating these genera as distinct from Lachnaceae at the family level. The limited phylogentic data they had available provided some support for this, and morphologically these genera differed from the rest of Lachnaceae in having smooth rather than rough walled hairs. The phylogenetic analysis in Johnston et al. (2019) showed two strongly supported monophyletic subclades within what they accepted as Lachnaceae, one of which represented Trichopeziza and its relatives with smooth-walled hairs. Treating this subclade as Solenopeziaceae has good phylogentic and morphological support.

However, Ekanayaka et al. (2019) also include taxa in the 'Hymenoscyphus' varicosporioides clade, sister to Helotiaceae in the Johnston et al. (2019) analysis, in their concept of Solenopeziaceae. This clade, phylogenetically distant from the core Solenopeziaceae genera, includes fungi with an 'aquatic hyphomycete-like' lifestyle and has been named Tricladiaceae by Johnston & Baschien 2020.