This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Dinosaurs Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palaeontology Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Although it has a few tyrannosaurid-like characters, the referral of Labocania to the Tyrannosauroidea is questionable. It might be a tyrannosauroid, but better material is required to confirm this (Kakuru, 13 February, 2008).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

With the afore mentioned close relationship of *Shaochilong* and *Labocania* and Mortimer and Cau publishing speculations on *labocania* being a Carcharodontosaurid I think its worth a quick mention in the article as a possibility.

^[1]

^[2]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Labocania is either an abelisaurid or a megaraptoran that ventured into North America. CuddleKing1993 (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]