Talk:Labocania

message: Why isn't Labocania in the family Tyrannosauridae? It's got the same body structure and it lived at the time of most other Tyrannosaurids. Benosaurus 16:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, because it's more primitive. Tyrannosauridae is defined as the most restrictive group containing Tyannosaurus, Albertasaurus, and Gorgosaurus. Anything more primitive than the common ancestor of those three is excluded, and goes into the broader superfamily Tyrannosauroidea. Dinoguy2 22:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Isn't it a Tyrannosaurid? 

message: that image is titanic! it eats up most of my Computers screen! (my resolution is 1600 X 900)--65.96.242.22 (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The image size specified in the infobox was missing 'px' - maybe it interprets that as cm? - anyway fixed now. Mikenorton (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  HUGE! HUGE! HUGE! 

message: There are saurolophine hadrosaurs and panoplosaurini nodosaurs in South America, so that means Abelisaurs would definitely ventured into North America. CuddleKing1993 (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot say "it's definitely an abelisaur" just because ankylosaurs and hadrosaurs were found in South America, or that abelisaurs ventured into North America. Its exact affinities are still problematic, and unless/until more papers discussing its affinities come to light, it cannot be definitively concluded to be an abelisaur. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If saurolophine hadrosaurs and panoplosaurini nodosaurs ventured into South America, then abelisaurs had to have ventured into North America. CuddleKing1993 (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the point. The presence of saurolophine hadrosaurs and panoplosaurin nodosaurs in SA has nothing to do with abelisaurids. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 15:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Labocania is either an abelisaurid or a megaraptoran that ventured into North America. CuddleKing1993 (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? Any characteristics present in the remains shared with abelisaurs and/or megaraptorans that aren't shared with tyrannosaurs? Using the fact that North American dinosaurs dispersed into South America does not mean that South American dinos did the same, although it is speculated to be the case for titanosaurs. We have not found tyrannosaurids or ceratopsids in South America either, so clearly not all types of dinos were involved in the dispersal event between the two Americas. PaleoNerd1905 (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I call bullcrap on the idea that titanosaurs dispersed into North America yet the more unique abelisaurs and megaraptorans did not, as a matter of fact I am pretty sure that tyrannosaurids and ceratopsids dispersed into South America too but we just have not found their fossils yet. CuddleKing1993 (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There are tyrannosauroids in South America but not tyrannosaurids, for instance, take Santanaraptor, from the Early Cretaceous of Brazil. Either way, that is irrelevant. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so the possibility of Labocania being an abelisaur or a megaraptoran seems thin. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 03:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If Labocania isn't an South American theropod that dispersed into North America, then how could titanosaurs disperse into North America or saurolophine hadrosaurs and nodosaurs disperse into South America? CuddleKing1993 (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A chain of islands existed between North and South America during the end-Cretaceous, which is how hadrosaurs and nodosaurs managed to make it to the Southern Hemisphere. In addition, it's also the same reason how sauropods returned to North America from SA. It could also be the reason for why alvarezsaurs appeared in North America as well. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not make any sense if the more spectacular looking megaraptorans and abelisaurs did not make to South America yet the more mundane titanosaurs did even though titanosaurs were already present in Asia. CuddleKing1993 (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Abelisaurs were also present in Asia in the forms of Indosaurus, Indosuchus, Rahiolisaurus, and Rajasaurus. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: But those did not coexist with ceratopsids or tyrannosaurids, unlike with titanosaurs like Zhuchengtitan and Nemegtosaurus. CuddleKing1993 (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

text: India was not part of Asia during the Late Cretaceous though, it was part of Gondwana for most of the Mesozoic, had only recently split from Madagascar by the Campanian-Maastrichtian, and didn't become part of Asia until the Paleogene. PaleoNerd1905 (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

text: What does the appearance of South America's theropods have anything to do with their ability to migrate into North America? Russell's teapot is also not a good way to support this argument, nor should it be used to suggest that tyrannosaurids and ceratopsids didn't enter South America. It is not at all impossible for some animals to disperse into new areas but not others. There were plenty of animals that never crossed the Bering land bridge during the last Ice Age, since woolly rhinos never entered North America, and ground sloths never colonized Asia. PaleoNerd1905 (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Stating without verified sources that Labocania "definitely is an abelisaur" because of a hunch is WP:Original Research.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's definitely an abelisaur