Nesbitt (2011) found that Proterochampsians share several distinguishing characteristics, or
vertebrae lacking a postzygodiapophyseal lamina, tibia with straight cnemial crest, fifth metatarsal that is not hook-shaped in its inner end, well developed foot phalanges on the fifth digit but with a poorly developed first phalanx, among other traits.[2]
Phylogeny
Rhadinosuchinae instead, as it is an internal clade of the family.[2][4]
Dilkes and Arcucci (2012) combined data from several phylogenetic analyses of the Archosauriformes, such as Dilkes and Sues (2009), Ezcurra et al. (2010) and Nesbitt (2011), and added ten new characters to their matrix. The monophyly of Proterochampsia, which was restricted to proterochampsids, was supported by 12 unambiguous
synapomorphies in their analysis, including the presence of dermal sculpturing on skull that consists of prominent ridges or tubercles on frontals, parietals and nasals; a contact between the maxilla and the prefrontal, separating lacrimal and nasal; a strongly convex dorsal margin of surangular and palatal teeth that are inserted into alveoli. Some of the synapomorphies recovered by Nesbitt (2011) were found to support either the node Cerritosaurus + Chanaresuchus or the node Tropidosuchus + Chanaresuchus.[5] The phylogenetic analysis of Sookias et al. (2014) is based on an updated version of their data set and recovered the cladogram
^ abcEzcurra MD. (2016) The phylogenetic relationships of basal archosauromorphs, with an emphasis on the systematics of proterosuchian archosauriforms. PeerJ, 4:e1778 [1]
