Dixon (2002) and Walsh (1981) treat Muk-Thang (S49) as a dialect of Ganai S68.

Clark analysed the primary and secondary sources of information on the boundaries of the Birrdhawal (S49) language and neighbouring Krauatangalung S48 language. He concludes that, contrary to Wesson's (1994, 2000, 2002) work, and supporting Fesl's (1985) and Thompson's (1985) findings, 'the Birrdhawal were land-locked and did not have any coastline as a southern boundary', and that 'the strip of coastal land between the Snowy River and Point Hicks or Wingan Inlet' belonged to the Krauatangalung (2011:38-49).

After identifying Birrdhawal's (S49) relationship to Ganai S68 as a central linguistic issue, Clark compiled lexicostatistics on limited available data for Birrdhawal and Ganai (as well as Thawa S52 and Ngarigu S46) 2011:36-38). He found 51 per cent common vocabulary, suggesting either languages in the same subgroup or dialects of the same language. He acknowledges the uncertainty of this analysis, based as it is on such limited data, concurring with Wafer and Lissarrague's conclusions that 'for present purposes we treat it as being distinct from other Victorian Border languages...it is unlikely to be a linguistic isolate, and the evidence suggests that it is most likely related to Kurnai (Ganaay)' (2008:95).

Note that Howitt (1996 1904:79-81) says the Bidawal language is a mixture of Kurnai S68, Ngarigo S46 and 'Murring' (i.e. a Yuin language).