First of all, Silvio's thoughts are right on the mark, and he supports his arguments with evidence you can visit on the web or in Switzerland.
T. Michael Kessey wrote:
I think there's a consensus that they are basal archosauromorphs. The dissent lies in:
- whether they form a natural group (synonymous with _Prolacertiformes_), or are just a polyphyletic assemblage of non-archosauriform archosauromorphs
>>>>New work, soon to be published, will show the former is correct. At least among the non-scrappy taxa.
These conclusions are quite similar to those of Dilkes 1998.
Cheers,
Silvio Renesto
_