Thanks for the news - it looks interesting.
Please note that this animal was NOT a salamander. It is "salamander-like", which basically means it has a tail and legs, like a lizard or a dog for that matter. Bet on it having fish-like scales as well.
By current standards it is only questionably an amphibian. It is a temnospondyl, which were likely ancestors of living amphibians and not of living amniotes, which means one can justifiably call them amphibians without conflict. However; many temnospondyls, including marine species, had little resemblance to what we think of as amphibians. Lepospondyls were another ancient "amphibian" group which might have given rise to some or all modern amphibians. A third such group, the reptiliomorphs, were ancestors of amniotes, more clearly showing the problem with calling them 'amphibians'! If we combined old nomenclature with current knowledge of relationships, *we* would be amphibians because we are direct descendants of animals with feet and tails which laid soft eggs in water.
Many temnospondyls were quite large, though I can't recall any of this size. However, I do know of fossil cryptobranchid salamanders from North America which WERE gigantic. Andrias matthewi has been estimated at up to 2300mm [nearly 100 inches - 7.5 feet]. See "Fossil Salamanders of North America" by J. Alan Holman, Indiana University Press, 2006.
