Boyer diss 2009 1046..

among plesiadapiforms (e.g., Szalay et al., 1975); however, the more rarely preserved
elements included in UM 87990 must be considered as only tentatively attributed to P.
cookei. These include metapodials II-V, some of the carpals, tarsals, vertebrae and ribs.
In the descriptive and/or comparative sections of this work I make comparative
arguments for attribution (or rejection) of these elements to P. cookei.
Major objectives
The current study provides the first thorough description and comparison of the
skeleton of Plesiadapis cookei (UM 87990). My primary aim is to provide high quality
imagery and extensive measurements documenting the skeleton’s form and mechanically
significant features such as patterns of articulation and consequent joint mobility. I will
also address a few persistent questions regarding morphology in this specimen in greater
detail than in previous work (e.g., Bloch and Boyer, 2007).
Anatomical terminology
The anatomical terminology employed in this study follows Szalay and
Dagosto (1980), the Nomina Anatomica (1983), Beard (1989), “Miller’s Anatomy of the
Dog” (Evans, 1993), and the Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria (1994) for different regions
of the skeleton. I generally follow Beard (1989) and Szalay and Dagosto (1980) for
descriptions of forelimb anatomy. However, I deviate from Beard in applying the
directional terms “radial” and “ulnar” to the radius, whereas he only used it for the carpal
bones. Beard chose to use a human anatomical reference for the radius, but this creates a
confusing situation for Plesiadapis because the most natural position for the radius
243