My first thought was: "wait... how can they recognize an 'edopoid' from its feet?"
(Edopoidea is a possibly paraphyletic assemblage of temnospondyls traditionally considered outside a clade that contains most or all other temnospondyls, though phylogenetic analyses have been all over the map.)
The paper states: "An edopoid temnospondyl is the suggested trackmaker, based on the morphological features described in detail by Mansky & Lucas (2013) from the Tournaisian sites in Nova Scotia." But that paper –
free pdf of the whole special issue here – never mentions edopoids. It only, on p. 268, associates
Palaeosauropus (and two other ichnogenera) with "amphibians, especially temnospondyls" because they have four-fingered handprints.
Now, that destroys my published claim that there's no evidence of Tournaisian temnospondyls. But "edopoids" specifically are associated with Palaeosauropus (or any other ichnogenus) only elsewhere in the same issue, on p. 89, where Fillmore, Lucas & Simpson state: "The trackmaker of Palaeosauropus has long been considered a temnospondyl amphibian, either an edopoid or an eryopoid (e.g., Haubold, 1971, 1984). This is primarily because of the relatively large size and the digital formula of the track—four digits in the manus and five in the pes--that is matched in temnospondyl skeletons."
Confusing.