The
type species of
Owenetta is
O. rubidgei. It is known from several skulls, but no postcranial skeleton. It was described in 1939 from a partial skull found from the Late Permian
Cistecephalus Assemblage Zone of the Beaufort Group. Several other localities, all from the overlying
Dicynodon Assemblage Zone, have yielded the remainder of the known specimens. In 2003,
Colubrifer, named in 1982 from a specimen (UCMP 42773) found from the Early Triassic
Lystrosaurus Assemblage Zone and thought to represent a short limbed
lizard, was re-described. Based on a skull nearly identical to those known of
Owenetta, it appears that the animal was a procolophonian almost certainly of that genus. It was found to be a
junior synonym of
Owenetta, but due to the poor preservation of its holotype, was reassigned
Owenetta sp.
"O." kitchingorum The naming of a new species in 2002,
O. kitchingorum, was suggested to extend the temporal range of
Owenetta into the Early Triassic, meaning that the genus would have survived past the
Permian–Triassic extinction event. This new species was considered distinct from the type species based on features found from three nearly complete specimens that were present from the
Lystrosaurus Assemblage Zone. Found in 1968, the first material of
O. kitchingorum was a small block containing two skeletons in close proximity to one another (although at the time they were thought to be of the type species). These skeletons provided much of the information used to distinguish
O. kitchingorum from the type species.
O. kitchingorum differed from
O. rubidgei in that it possessed small postparietals on the posterior edge of the skull table and that the
maxilla held no more than 20 teeth, some of which were caniniform. The best preserved specimen seems to be a subadult individual on the basis of features of the skull table. A year after
O. kitchingorum was named, Modesto and colleagues described
Saurodektes rogersorum, a new South African owenettid from the Early Triassic, based on a fragmentary skull and postcranium. The authors further proposed that "
O."
kitchingorum should be assigned to its own distinct genus. A 2007 paper also supported this
polyphyly. In 2020, Hamley and colleagues reassessed the validity of "
Owenetta"
kitchingorum in relation to the coeval
Saurodektes. These authors noted that, while Modesto et al. (2003) had interpreted the two as distinct, three traits diagnostic to "
O."
kitchingorum can not be observed in the fragmentary
S. rogersorum skull. Furthermore, one of the characters previously regarded as unique to "
O."
kitchingorum is also present in
Barasaurus. Various traits proposed as diagnostic for
S. rogersorum are also present in fossils of "
O."
kitchingorum. The authors concluded that "
O."
kitchingorum and
S. rogersorum are effectively indistinguishable. Since "
O."
kitchingorum is significantly distinct from
O. rubidgei, the type species of
Owenetta, and thus not referable to this genus, the authors transferred it to the genus
Saurodektes. However, since it is identical to
S. rogersorum and "
O."
kitchingorum was named first (and has
priority as a name over the former), the authors created the new combination
Saurodektes kitchingorum for this material, then becoming the only valid species of that genus. ==Phylogenetics==