[3][1] Fossils of the animal now known as Uranocentrodon were first discovered in a sandstone quarry in the Normandien Formation near Senekal in Free State, South Africa.

In 1911, he gave the formal name Myriodon senekalensis to the specimens by means of a brief description published in Dutch.

Around the same time as the Transvaal specimens were being described, Robert Broom discovered skull fragments which he considered to belong to a new species of Rhinesuchus, 'Rhinesuchus major'.

[6] However, this skull (given the designation 60C 1-1a) is now believed to belong to Uranocentrodon, rendering R. major a junior synonym of the genus.

[3] In 1915, Sidney Haughton, decided to synonymize Uranocentrodon (at that time still called Myriodon) with Rhinesuchus, although he kept it as a separate species within the genus.

He also described another practically complete skeleton (including skull material) kept at the Bloemfontein Museum, a specimen now designated as NMQR 1483.

These structures appeared near the neck of one of the skeletons, and almost certainly attached to the branchial arches of gills while the animal was alive.

This conundrum, known as Bystrow's paradox, has made it difficult to assess gills in ancient amphibians such as Uranocentrodon.

This study found that grooved ceratobrachnial structures (components of the branchial arches) are correlated with internal gills.

Ancient tetrapods which preserved grooved ceratobranchials, such as the dvinosaur Dvinosaurus, probably only had internal gills as adults.

The scales of the hind limbs and the underside of the hip region were similar to those of the back, although no integument was preserved on the forelimbs or tail.