in all subsequent analyses, its relationships remained controversial during the following century. Both the Ceratosauridae and Ceratosauria were not widely accepted, with only few and poorly known additional members identified. Over the years, separate authors classified Ceratosaurus within the Deinodontidae, the Megalosauridae, the Coelurosauria, the Carnosauria, and the Deinodontoidea. In his 1920 revision, Gilmore argued that the genus was the most basal theropod known from after the Triassic, so not closely related to any other contemporary theropod known at that time; it thus warrants its own family, the Ceratosauridae. It was not until the establishment of cladistic analysis in the 1980s, however, that Marsh's original claim of the Ceratosauria as a distinct group gained ground. In 1985, the newly discovered South American genera Abelisaurus and Carnotaurus were found to be closely related to Ceratosaurus. Gauthier, in 1986, recognized the Coelophysoidea to be closely related to Ceratosaurus, although this clade falls outside of Ceratosauria in most recent analyses. Many additional members of the Ceratosauria have been recognized since. The Ceratosauria split off early from the evolutionary line leading to modern birds, thus is considered basal within theropods. Ceratosauria itself contains a group of derived (nonbasal) members of the families Noasauridae and Abelisauridae, which are bracketed within the clade Abelisauroidea, as well as a number of basal members, such as Elaphrosaurus, Deltadromeus, and Ceratosaurus. The position of Ceratosaurus within basal ceratosaurians is under debate. Some analyses considered Ceratosaurus as the most derived of the basal members, forming the sister taxon of the Abelisauroidea. Oliver Rauhut, in 2004, proposed Genyodectes as the sister taxon of Ceratosaurus, as both genera are characterized by exceptionally long teeth in the upper jaw. Rauhut grouped Ceratosaurus and Genyodectes within the family Ceratosauridae, which was followed by several later accounts. Shuo Wang and colleagues, in 2017, concluded that the Noasauridae were not nested within the Abelisauroidea as was previously assumed, but instead were more basal than Ceratosaurus. Because noasaurids had been used as a fix point to define the clades Abelisauroidea and Abelisauridae, these clades would consequently include many more taxa per definition, including Ceratosaurus. In a subsequent 2018 study, Rafael Delcourt accepted these results, but pointed out that, as a consequence, the Abelisauroidea would need to be replaced by the older synonym Ceratosauroidea, which was hitherto rarely used. For the Abelisauridae, Delcourt proposed a new definition that excludes Ceratosaurus, allowing for using the name its traditional sense.