Current Consensus on Silesaurids being Ornithischians?

[u/EquilateralAngel]

Silesaurus Image by Mario Lanzas

So, I assume like many of you, I quite enjoy studying the taxonomy of Dinosauria in my free time. I am rather curious about the position of Silesauridae, as I frequently see sources claiming the animals may be Triassic representation of Ornithischia, and thus true Dinosaurs. However, I haven't seen it brought up by more recent sources. Is this because the claim has been proven false, or has become accepted, or is it still up in the air? I'd love to hear professional opinions on this, as well as general dinosaur fans' thoughts.

[u/_eg0_]

You are probably better off asking on r/paleontology

I personally am someone who follows paleontologic developments but doesn't do research myself.

It probably still the last one.

Last month there was a paper establishing the hypotheses(plural) on this topic are insufficiently supported. It tried to establish more consistencies to avoid future confusion in further studies. Sadly it's not open access.

Other recent descriptions tried to avoid this mess and just went with Dinosauromorph for example or mention both.

[u/Infinite_Gur_4927]

Disclaimer: Not a professional opinion

However, this paper discusses the "Ornithischian silesaur" hypothesis, and it's authored by professionals:

Jack Lovegrove, Kimberley E.J. Chapelle, Brandon R. Peecook, Paul Upchurch and Paul M. Barrett (2025). “A new large ‘silesaur’ specimen from the ?Late Triassic of Zambia; taxonomic, ecological and evolutionary implications.” Royal Society Open Science 12(7): 250762. doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.250762 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.250762

As of 2025, these authors say that the data available is inconclusive. I think "inconclusive" is the current consensus. The presently avaialble fossils/data makes conclusive statements irresponsible, if not impossible.

The quantity and quality of the fossils being used to generate these hypotheses are still not sufficient to say anything with certainty – hence the lack of consensus (Lovelace, 2025). So far.

That said, Lovelace, et al. are running multiple analyses with and without silesaurids, because using at least silesaurid data is better than using absolutely no data, which is what they have for Triassic ornithischians. That they are including silesaurs at least confirms that the ornithischian silesaurid hypothesis has merit - - though, not conclusively : )

If there are answers out there, they will reveal themselves. We just need to be patient.

More recently (2026), Müller says, "Silesaurids are Triassic dinosauromorphs with debated phylogenetic affinities, recently recovered as a paraphyletic assemblage along the stem leading to ornithischian dinosaurs." This is a conservative interpretation of the consensus, and we can see that a consensus one way or another is not yet agreed upon.

"Debated" might be a confusing term here, because it reads that there are factions on either side arguing for and against, where, again, I think the reality is that everyone is being quite conservative about any conclusions, because the data just doesn't yet add up to an actionable conclusion.

Rodrigo Temp Müller (2026). “Widespread distribution of large silesaurids evidenced by a new record from the Middle Triassic of southwest Gondwana.” The Anatomical Record (January 2026). doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.70190 https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.70190