 He concluded by classifying it as Diapsida "incertae sedis", and a dubious name, adding an exhortation not to name pterosaurs from material lacking unequivocal pterosaur characters.Bennett's conclusion was rejected by Czerkas & Ford (2018), who affirmed the validity of initial interpretation of "Utahdactylus" as a pterosaur.The authors reported that the cervical of the holotype specimen was completely prepared out of the matrix along with the scapulacoracoid, a sacrum, and part of a mandible.