The
holotype, UCMP 139576 (a left dorsal paramedian
scute), was first discovered by
Charles Lewis Camp in 1930. Camp initially named the species "
Machaeroprosopus zuni". UCMP 139576 was eventually moved into its own taxon and classified under the name
Acaenasuchus, upon reclassification by Robert A. Long and Philip A. Murry in 1995. The species
epithet Acaenasuchus geoffreyi was named after Geoffrey Long, Robert A. Long's son, for his "considerable patience while his father was away in the field". Long and Murry are credited for providing the most stable evidence that
Acaenasuchus was an independent taxon. Long and Murry identified small dorsal plates along the carapace of
Acaenasuchus, and identified what they described to be
"ornithischian-like" teeth, in addition to a multitude of other proposed synapomorphies. Some of which are the subjects of active studies regarding
Acaenasuchus characterization. The holotype UCMP 139576 was discovered in the
Petrified Forest Member of the
Chinle Formation and belongs to a fully grown individual, as opposed to a juvenile as initially believed. The Upper Triassic Chinle Formation of Arizona is abundant with fossils belonging to over 18 different taxa groups. Collections from the 1890s onwards document various holotypes of these ranging taxa, including that of
Acaenasuchus. In addition to the holotype UCMP 139576, 95 other scutes under 90 catalogue numbers likely also belong to
Acaenasuchus. Another specimen, known as SMU 75403, was described by Marsh
et al. (2020), and consists of representative cranial, vertebral, and appendicular elements as well as previously unknown variations in the dorsal carapace and ventral shield.
Validity of the taxon The classification of
Acaenasuchus as an independent taxon has been the topic of controversy due to its similarities to
Desmatosuchus. Upon review by Andrew B. Heckert and Spencer G. Lucas, the characters that Long and Murry claim to distinguish between the two species may not represent novel scute features but rather
ontogenetic variation. These characters include pitting over the dorsal scutes of
Acaenasuchus and division between the raised boss into two flanges of
Acaenasuchus, neither of which are present in
Desmatosuchus. Heckert and Lucas argue that the visible pits and grooves over the dorsal scutes of
Acaenasuchus indicate a juvenile stage of
Desmatosuchus development. They elaborate that this pitting is a developmental ontogenetic feature that has been observed in the maturation process of other
Aetosaurs, specifically in the taxa
Aetosaurus. In addition to the ontogenetic variation hypothesis, Heckert and Lucas have determined that of the four locations within the Adamanian LVF where
Acaenasuchus holotypes have been excavated, two localities are a site of great abundance of adult
Desmatosuchus fossils. While studies are ongoing, the majority of working paleontologists agree that
Acaenasuchus should retain its status as a valid taxon, independent of
Desmatosuchus. The "pitting" as an example of ontogenetic developments is not supported strongly... due to the fact that the concept of ontogenetic maturation is a poorly understood phenomena within Aetosauria. To address the geographical proximity of
Acaenasuchus fossils to those of adult
Desmatosuchus, evidence has not been studied to an extent sufficient to claim synonymy at this time. There are too many variables to consider, such as the possibility that both species lived in close proximity to each other during the Late Triassic period. It is also notable that the Chinle Formation is a region rich in Aetosaur specimens, not solely
Desmatosuchus. == Description ==