Boyer diss 2009 1046..

MNHN R 546 (p. 146, fig. 6). They agreed with Simpson’s (1935) assessment that
Plesiadapis and Notharctus have similar ulnae. They noted specifically that the two are
united in the shallowness of the trochlear notch, proximal bowing of the shaft and a
relatively small olecranon process. They figured a radius, MNHN R 550 (p. 143, fig. 4),
and considered it especially primate-like in the oval form of its proximal articular surface.
They figured two distal phalanges (p. 148, fig. 7) unnumbered at the time, but revealed
by later researchers as pertaining to MNHN R 5313 and MNHN R 613 (Beard, 1989, p.
132). The authors noted what is apparent from the figure (that the bones are claws) and
did not add any information to Russell’s (1964) assessment. They mentioned abundant
preserved cheiridial elements from Cernay among the material that Russell (1964)
attributed to Plesiadapis, but called into question their association because of the
abundance of similarly-sized arctocyonids from the locality. Szalay et al. (1975) figured
an innominate, MNHN CR 448 (p. 149, fig. 8), and a partial reconstruction of the
innominate based on MNHN CR 448, CR 409 and CR 413 (p. 149, fig. 9). They
considered the morphology of innominates of N. gidleyi (AMNH 17409) and P.
walbeckensis (no numbers given) as well, and concluded that the plesiadapid innominate
is generally “primitive.” In fact, they considered Tupaia to have a more primate-like
innominate than plesiadapids. Szalay et al., however, suggested that a proportionally
large acetabulum is a special similarity between plesiadapids and euprimates. The femur
was described based on MNHN BR-15-L, MNHN BR-16-L, MNHN CR 408, MNHN
CR 438, MNHN CR 444, MNHN CR 450 and “an additional half dozen fragmentary
bones” (Szalay et al., 1975: p. 151). They figured MNHN R 444, MNHN R 450 (p. 152,
fig. 10), and a reconstruction based on all considered specimens (p. 153, fig. 11). Their
260