Although he admitted that Prestosuchus is a valid name, he preferred to replace that name under the argument that a type species was not explicitly established along ICZN guidelines. Other paleontologists have informally disagreed with this argument, and publications relevant to Prestosuchus have consistently treated P. chiniquensis as a valid type species.
The author's preference to substitute Prestosuchus stems from the lack of an explicitly designated type specimen according to ICZN guidelines. This has led to disagreement among paleontologists, with publications on Prestosuchus consistently recognizing P. chiniquensis as a valid type species.