But they disliked this course of action too, as unless a second taxon with the same morphology was found in the area, they posited the specimen likely did represent a unique component of the local fauna. Thus, they decided to keep it distinct, relative to "Tsintaosaurus". No material had, as yet, been discovered from the SRA locality permitting comparison with "Pararhabdodon". However, traits uniting "P. isonensis" with "T. spinorhinus" were found. As both taxa from the Talarn Formation uniquely shared traits with the Asian genus, the authors decided to treat the two as one species, as maintaining them as provisionally separate would in their eyes be misleading to non-specialists, who would likely not distinguish the two taxa were kept separate to be conservative and not due to strong evidence for two hadrosaurs in the area. Prieto-Márquez returned again to the dentary in 2013, in a study alongside colleagues providing a review and investigation of hadrosaurs from all over Europe. Further preparation of the specimen in the time since his last study regarding it revealed the uniqueness of the dentary had been exaggerated significantly by reconstruction of the specimen when it was first prepared in the 1990s. The "Tsintaosaurus" specimens showing the similar condition were found to have been distorted from a similar process. Correcting for the inaccuracies, the Los Llaus dentary is indistinguishable from that of multiple lambeosaurines, and shares no particular connection to "Tsintaosaurus". With this, their reasoning for assignment of the specimen to "Pararhabdodon" was voided, and the specimen is now considered a completely indeterminate lambeosaurine dentary. "Pararhabdodon" most likely was a bipedal-quadrupedal herbivore, in the neighborhood of 6 m (19.7 ft) long, fully grown. The dorsal and sacral neural spines were elongate, so the animal would have had a tall back, like other hadrosaurids. Because the material is sparse, more specific conclusions cannot be reached. "Pararhabdodon" has been classified in a number of different positions within Iguanodontia since its remains were first discovered in the mid-1980s. When the first specimens were originally discovered and described by Casanovas-Cladellas and colleagues, they were not thought to belong a new taxon at all, but merely to belong to the genus "Rhabdodon", and of an uncertain species.