> And at least superficially, the Casea-Eunotosaurus skull comparison in Fig. 27 is convincing.
Hardly, because – perhaps for reasons of copyright-related laziness – all three reconstructions in that figure date from the mid-20th century or earlier and thus ignore all the more recent research – the paper cites all of the more recent studies of Eunotosaurus
and some on caseids.
Also, you can't do phylogenetics with three taxa. There is only one unrooted tree for three terminals. You need at least four terminal taxa. The phylogenetic analyses are much more important in that respect than fig. 27 (...though how they managed to get the
two added caseids to come out so far from the Caseidae OTU certainly warrants a closer look).