Much controversy has arisen however, about the association with the later material referred by von Huene. In 1982 John Ostrom claimed that SMNS 12352 and SMNS 12352a originated from a taxon different from the holotype. In 2006 and 2008 Fabien Knoll concluded that SMNS 12352 represented a crocodylomorph and SMNS 12352a a crocodylomorph or some other basal archosaur. The postcranial skeleton, for which he reserved the inventory number SMNS 12591, was a coelophysoid; and the skull, now indicated with the number SMNS 12591a, a perhaps more derived theropod, possibly a basal member of the Tetanurae.Knoll, F. & Schoch, R., 2006, "Does Procompsognathus have a head? Systematics of an enigmatic Triassic taxon", Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26: 86AKnoll, F., 2008, "On the Procompsognathus postcranium (Late Triassic, Germany)", Geobios 41: 779-786 In 2012 Knoll after a CAT-scan reaffirmed that SMNS 12352 was a crocodylomorph, but established it was different from Saltoposuchus.Knoll, F. & Schoch, R., 2012, "CT scanning, rapid prototyping and re-examination of a partial skull of a basal crocodylomorph from the Late Triassic of Germany", Swiss Journal of Geosciences 105: 109-115
