The primary subject of research regarding the bonebed has been the
taxonomic identity of the hadrosaurs there - namely, whether only one taxon or multiple taxa are present. The question has been complicated by a rarity of cranial elements in the sample, since they are the most taxonomically informative areas of the skeleton in hadrosaurs. Initially, it was assumed that only a single species was present in the sample. In 2015, a study by Alejandro Blanco and colleagues performed multiple types of
morphometric analysis to investigate hadrosaur diversity in from the Pyrenees using dentaries. The number of alveolar positions in the dentary was the primary metric for distinctiveness, as more
basal taxa possess less, though it was noted this can also increase with age as an individual grows. Three morphotypes (groupings of specimens with a distinct anatomy from the other groupings) were found in the sample, of which two (numbers two and three) were present in the BP bonebed.
Growth trajectory analysis of the different morphotypes supported their separation. Sexual dimorphism being the reason for different anatomy was considered unlikely due to different results in
regression analysis. Morphotype three was interpreted as belonging to dwarf, potentially relictual
hadrosauroids; and morphotype two was considered to represent larger,
lambeosaurine animals. It was stressed each morphotype was not necessarily just one species, but merely representative of a distinct lineage of hadrosaurs. In 2018, a more extensive study of the material was conducted by Víctor Fondevilla and colleagues, and the question of how many taxa were present of the sample was investigated using specimens from multiple parts of the body, as opposed to just the dentaries. Overall, a large amount of variation was noted in the specimens, but as it was gradual, rather than a case of two obvious morphotypes, the authors attributed it to
individual variation. Regarding the dentaries, they too were not found to obviously sort into multiple morphotypes due to a high amount of variation between all of them. One particular dentary was noted to be rather distinct from the rest, but
taphonomic damage or improper restoration during preparation of the fossil were considered possible explanations as opposed to taxonomic distinctiveness. The authors favored identification of the hadrosaurs present in the bonebed as a singular taxon of lambeosaurine. ==Size and age of the individuals==