"DNA evidence, if available, is very good for clearing up confusing cases. "
Not to nit-pick, but didn't you just state that their was no DNA evidence on this thing?
And yes, mis-classification may be minor on the most part, but that would apply to *current* species, wouldn't it? We have no genetic evidence (I may have missed one of your links on this, forgive me if I did) of links between such ancient beasts.
As for the "seriousness" of a reclassification, I defer to my statement about it applying to *current* species. We have no clue how "off" we are on older than that.
Regards,
-Mac
I don't recall. DNA from creatures that old must be rare indeed, if any still exists. The Nature article (at post 22) says they "uncovered a skull, pelvis and limb bones ... ." That's probably enough for an expert to make a good classification. If more turn up, we'll learn if this initial classification is correct. Just relax. These things can take a bit of time. The foundations of science don't rest on this one fossil.