With dorsally oriented nostrils and eyes and a poor range of head movement, as well as its fossils being associated with freshwater environments, Baru is generally interpreted to have been a semi-aquatic ambush hunter, spending much of its day submerged in water waiting for prey.

Instead, it may have relied on its powerful bite and compressed teeth to quickly incapacitate its prey, minimalizing the risk of it escaping during the ensuing struggle in the shallow waters.

One hypothesis suggests that the continent was hit by an especially devastating pulse of aridification that was severe enough to destroy the habitat preferred by Baru, before conditions improved again leading into the Pliocene.

[4] The 90s and 2000s also saw the discovery of material at the Alcoota fossil site, but these finds though very complete were initially thought to have simply belonged to an established species,[5][6] with only later works slowly beginning to recognize its distinctiveness.

There had been fossil finds at the site predating even the description of Baru, going as far back as 1962, but given the poor understanding of Australasian crocodilians these isolated early remains were simply referred to Crocodylus at the time.

Yates noted that the genus was poorly defined in the original 1990 description, revising the diagnosis while also discussing a variety of additional material collected in subsequent years.

[6] The skull is trapezoid in cross section and described as altirostral by some researchers, setting it apart from the platyrostral snout shape typically associated with generalist crocodilians such as Paludirex, Kambara and Australosuchus.

As expected from a semi-aquatic animal, the nares open dorsally, meaning upwards, which makes them well suited for keeping the head underwater over extended periods of time.

While these ornamentations are most prominent in the oldest form, this does not necessarily mean that they were lost throughout the animals evolution, at least when following the interpretation that Baru iylwenpeny was actually the most basal species of the genus as recovered by Yates, Ristevski and Salisbury.

Baru iylwenpeny also possesses unique cranial sculpting, notably a pair of pits present atop the suture between prefrontal and frontal bone.

The fenestrae are noted for being highly reduced in large individuals of Baru iylwenpeny, in which the surrounding bones of the skull table begin to overhang these openings more and more until they resemble a comma.

Although its placement in early studies varied depending on the author, its place within the family has gradually crystalized, with it now typically being considered to be a derived mekosuchine related to the likewise semi-aquatic Paludirex.

In their 2018 study, Lee and Yates utilized stratigraphic, morphological and genetic information to determine the relationships of crocodilians, finding that Baru claded with Pallimnarchus and Kalthifrons as a sister group to the dwarf mekosuchines like Trilophosuchus and Mekosuchus.

Baru wickeni is consistently found to be the basalmost member of the genus, not only due to its age but also the fact that the unserrated carinae of its teeth are the plesiomorphic (ancestral) condition.

In these results, the relationship between Paludirex and Baru remained much the same as shown previously, except that the next closest taxon to these two genera was Mekosuchus, followed by Quinkana and Kalthifrons respectively.

This would suggest that Baru iylwenpeny diverged before the other two species did, which is supported by a variety of anatomical traits including the fact that even adults retain five premaxillary teeth.

The large, closely spaced and backwards directed teeth combined with the prominent festooning of the jaws suggest that the skull of Baru functioned much like a cleaver, delivering a devastating and incapacitating blow to any potential prey items.

[3] The minute serrations present on the teeth of Baru darrowi may have been a further refinement of this hunting method, serving to cut through flesh and other tissue as the struggling prey tries to resist the bite of the crocodilian.

Instead, Willis suggests that Baru's habitat meant that it had to take out prey more quickly, thus leading to a powerful bite that would immobilize its target and minimize the risk of escape.

The atlas-axis complex, the first vertebrae of the neck, indicate that its mobility was no greater than that of a saltwater crocodile, which is adequate for a semi-aquatic animal but limiting for a terrestrial hunter.

Prior to this discovery, it was hypothesized that the Riversleigh WHA was separated from the Lake Eyre Basin by some factor of geography like a dessert, preventing Baru from ranging further south and isolating Australosuchus.

Yates suggests that climate may have been a factor, and that Baru was simply not cold-resistant enough to spread beyond the 25° South, whereas Australosuchus was better adapted to handling lower temperatures than its relative.

[13] These woodlands are thought to have been dotted by a variety of freshwater systems ranging from shallow streams to slow moving waters like deep pools and billabongs.

[10][15] Less is known about the crocodilian fauna of the Alcoota fossil site, but based on differences in the skull table it could be established that at least one other species shared its environment with Baru iylwenpeny.

[2] The geographic ranges of both B. wickeni and B. darrowi indicate that these crocodilians were widespread across the freshwater systems of northern to central Australia during relatively narrow timeframes.

This extinction may coincide with the disappearance of what is simply referred to as the "B. huberi lineage" by Yates and colleagues, a poorly understood group that includes Ultrastenos which coexisted with Baru wickeni, the "Bullock Creek taxon" and the unnamed dwarf form recognized from Alcoota in 2023.

As ocean temperatures dropped and the Middle Miocene climate optimum ended, rainforests began to retreat across the continent and conditions grew gradually more arid.

However, Yates and colleagues do highlight how the two periods are clearly the stage of a major faunal turnover that saw mekosuchines now competing with newly arrived members of the genus Crocodylus.

[2] A possible reason for the sudden extinction of Baru and other Miocene mekosuchines may be that Australia underwent an especially harsh but brief period of aridity that was severe enough to temporarily destroy the preferred habitat of these animals.

With the only areas that saw increased rainfall falling outside of the range of Baru, the destruction of these inland habitats could have wiped out the genus before conditions improved again, allowing for other mekosuchines like Kalthifrons and Paludirex to fill the empty niches alongside species of Crocodylus.