ABSTRACT. Otozoum moodii Hitchcock, 1847 is one of the classic Connecticut Valley ichnotaxa established by Edward Hitchcock between 1836 and 1865. The taxon is redescribed, and AC 4/1a re-established as the holotype specimen. Otozoum minus and O. caudatum are synonymised with O. moodii. The syntypes of Kalosauropus pollex (nomen nudum) are described as O. pollex sp. nov. Cladistic, quantitative, and comparative methods of trackmaker identi®cation suggest that Otozoum was made by a prosauropod dinosaur. In quantitative analyses, only those phalanges likely to contribute to footprint morphology were considered; claws were also excluded due to their highly variable styles of impression. Several diagnostic characters distinguish Otozoum from Brachychirotherium, Chirotherium, Batrachopus, Tetrasauropus, and Pseudotetrasauropus; these ichnotaxa are probably attributable to crurotarsan archosaurs. Otozoum is found primarily in Hettangian strata of the Hartford, Deer®eld, and Fundy rift basins of eastern North America; it is also present in the Early Jurassic Navajo Sandstone (Colorado Plateau, USA) and Clarens Formation (Lesotho). The taxon is unknown in older strata; Triassic material previously referred to Otozoum (including O. grandcombensis) instead belongs in Pseudotetrasauropus. Correlation of sediments and comparison of faunal assemblages, particularly within the Newark Supergroup, suggest that the Otozoum trackmakers were restricted to arid environments.KEY WORDS: Otozoum, Pseudotetrasauropus, Early Jurassic, ichnotaxa, prosauropod.I N 1836, Edward Hitchcock, at that time Professor of Chemistry and Natural History at Amherst College, published the ®rst description of footprints from Early Jurassic strata of the Connecticut Valley. By the time of his death in 1864, he had described over 70 vertebrate and invertebrate ichnogenera and 140 ichnospecies (summarised in E. Hitchcock 1858, 1865). The catalogue of specimens in the Hitchcock Ichnological Cabinet of Amherst College (C. H. Hitchcock 1865) appears to have been used by later workers as the basis for identi®cation of type material, and the concepts of individual ichnotaxa. Unfortunately omissions, misidenti®cations, and imprecise wording con¯ict with the earlier works of E. Hitchcock, and have caused much confusion. The ichnotaxon lists (primarily E. Hitchcock 1858, 1865; C. H. Hitchcock 1865) were reviewed, revised, and expanded over the next 100 years (Hay 1902(Hay , 1930Lull 1904 Lull , 1915 Lull , 1953Abel 1935). Lull's (1953 treatise is commonly used as the basis for studies on Early Jurassic ichnites; Haubold's (1971Haubold's ( , 1984 monographs relied on Lull's (1953) publication in describing Early Jurassic footprints from North America. These three works are considered the standard references for palaeoichnological studies. Unfortunately, errors in Lull's (1904Lull's ( , 1915Lull's ( , 1953 works, largely due to reliance on C. H. Hitchcock's (1865) catalogue, have been perpetuated by subsequent ichnotaxonomists who have used Lull's works as a bas...