the species pertaining to "deinosuchus" since the resurrection of the generic name in 1979 have been traditionally recognized as "d. rugosus" from appalachia and the larger "d. hatcheri/riograndensis" from laramidia, characterized by differences of the shape of their osteoderms and teeth. however, this view was not universally supported and schwimmer (2002) recognized just one species, "deinosuchus rugosus", with the differences found between the two species explained as the result of the larger size of the western morph. this proposal was endorsed by lucas et al. (2006), but was criticized by other authors and an svp 2010 abstract schwimmer reported new fossils of specimens from both sides of the interior seaway that indicated that the differences between the two morphs were not just size related, teeth from large eastern specimens retained the common characteristics of other specimens of the region and osteoderms from small specimens of the western morph were no different from those of large ones, supporting the specific separation of the two morphs, "d. rugosus" and "d. hatcheri/riograndensis". in their overview of crocodyliform material from the kaiparowits formation of utah, irmis et al. (2013) noted that "d. rugosus" is dubious due to its holotype teeth being undiagnostic, and recommended using "deinosuchus hatcheri" for "deinosuchus" material from laramidia, while stressing that cranial "deinosuchus" material from appalachia has not been described.