Boyer diss 2009 1046..

discussion of the femur indicates that it is fundamentally different from that of fossil
notharctine euprimates. However, they pointed out that some features distinguishing
plesiadapids from these adapiforms unite them with lorisines. Some of the distinct
features of the plesiadapid femur, mentioned by Szalay et al., include the low angle
between the femoral neck and shaft, the distinct constriction of the femoral neck relative
to the femoral head, a large medially projecting lesser trochanter, a distally positioned
third trochanter, and an anteroposteriorly shallow patellar groove. They noted the
existence of the tibia (MNHN CR 410) and fibula figured by Simons (1940), and
suggested that they are too fragmentary for meaningful description: they considered
Simpson’s description of the tibia of N. gidleyi as adequate. Elements of the ankle joint
were mentioned again; the authors referenced Szalay and Decker (1974). Specifically,
they figured an astragalus based on MNHN R 610 (p. 155, fig. 12) and a calcaneum
based on MNHN R 611 (p.156, fig. 13). They listed what they considered to be four
derived primate characters of the astragalus and calcaneum including a pronounced
groove for the tendon of flexor digitorum fibularis on the plantar side of the calcaneal
sustentaculum, an astragalus with a continuous navicular and sustentacular facet, a
proximodistally long tibial trochlea and a “helical-shape” to the posterior
astragalocalcaneal articulation. They also provided tables (p. 158, table I; p. 160, table II)
that compare these tarsal bones more systematically and thoroughly among what they
consider to be condylarth, palaeoryctoid, primate, and adapid “morphotypes.” They
concluded with a functional assessment, suggesting that the forearm was habitually
flexed and axially mobile and that the “upper hindlimb” had a capacity for powerful
extension, but a lack of leaping adaptations. They reiterated functional inferences from
261