Boyer diss 2009 1046..
Boyer diss 2009 1046.. Boyer diss 2009 1046..
described plesiadapid bones including those of P. tricuspidens (MNHN BR-3-L, MNHN R 450, MNHN BR-16-L and MNHN R 444), N. intermedius (USNM 442229), and N. gidleyi (AMNH 17379). They found that these taxa had limbs that were shorter than those of extant gliders, arboreal nongliders and paromomyids, but similar in proportional length to those of terrestrial sciurids. Although the authors did not discuss the significance of this finding, the results support the view of Gingerich (1976). Hamrick (2001) plotted third digit ray proportions (metacarpal, proximal phalanx and intermediate phalanx) of archontan mammals on ternary diagrams (a graph with three axes where each axis represents the length of one of the bones of a digit ray in the form of its percentage of the entire digit ray length). He included measurements from undescribed bones of P. cookei (UM 87990) and found them to plot with scandentians and to be separated from those of modern primates. He argued that euprimate manual digit proportions were a “novel” innovation associated with the evolutionary origin and subsequent adaptive radiation of the clade. Bloch and Boyer (2002) added to Hamrick’s (2001) ternary diagram by plotting digits of P. cookei and other plesiadapiforms (although they do not indicate which particular specimens were plotted). They also provided the first figure (p. 1609, fig. 5B) of a digit ray based on bones of P. cookei (UM 87990). They showed that nonplesiadapid plesiadapiforms plot with euprimates and suggested that P. cookei is derived in having scandentian-like proportions. Thus, they disagreed with Hamrick’s (2001) suggestion that euprimates were characterized by a change in finger proportions compared to plesiadapiforms. Instead, they concluded that long fingers, and the manual 272
prehensility they provide, is an innovation of the ancestor of a clade comprised of euprimates and plesiadapiforms (but probably excluding dermopterans and treeshrews). Youlatos and Godinot (2004) quantitatively compared the morphology of P. tricuspidens and P. n. sp. material from Berru and the early Eocene Le Quesnoy locality, respectively, to that of a sample of extant terrestrial and arboreal rodents. Much of the material listed in their table 1 (p. 105) has been figured or mentioned elsewhere (not including the list from Russell, 1964) including ulnae (MNHN R 546 and MNHN R 443), radii (MNHN R 550), femora (MNHN BR-16-L, MNHN R 408, MNHN R 444) and ungual phalanges (MNHN R 5361, MNHN R 5381, MNHN R 5309). Additionally they analyzed for the first time several new ulnae (MNHN R 411 and MNHN R 615), radii (MNHN R 553 and MNHN R 597), a femur (MNHN R 407), and claws (MNHN R 612- 613). They also included newly recognized uncatalogued specimens of radii and ungual phalanges. The authors listed “MNHN R 542” as a proximal ulna. I could not find this specimen when I visited the MNHN. I did, however, find a proximal ulna with the number MNHN R 452 and presume that this is the specimen to which the authors intended to refer. Russell does not list MNHN R 542 as an element of Plesiadapis. According to Russell (1964: p. 309), “MNHN R 542” is a partial humerus of Pleursapidotherium aumonieri. Youlatos and Godinot also listed “MNHN R 2527,” which I could not locate and Russell did not list. Another problem appears to be their listing of “MNHN R 5370” as a claw; Russell (1964) listed this bone as a metapodial and Beard (1989) confirmed his identification. Youlatos and Godinot also listed “MNHN R 549” as a claw. Again, I could not locate this element and Russell did not list it as an ungual. Instead, Russell (1964: p. 309) listed MNHN R 549 under Pleuraspidotherium 273
- Page 249 and 250: Figure 3.1. Cranium of Plesiadapis
- Page 251 and 252: Figure 3.3. Right maxillary teeth (
- Page 253 and 254: Figure 3.4. Cranium of Plesiadapis
- Page 255 and 256: Figure 3.5. Cranium of Plesiadapis
- Page 257 and 258: Figure 3.6. Cranium of Plesiadapis
- Page 259 and 260: Figure 3.8. Fragment from right nuc
- Page 261 and 262: Figure 3.9. Right promontorium of P
- Page 263 and 264: Figure 3.10. Cranium of Plesiadapis
- Page 265 and 266: Figure 3.12. Right dentary of Plesi
- Page 267 and 268: Figure 3.14. A, Plot of relief inde
- Page 269 and 270: CHAPTER 4: THE FIRST KNOWN SKELETON
- Page 271 and 272: among plesiadapiforms (e.g., Szalay
- Page 273 and 274: Institutional and collections abbre
- Page 275 and 276: CaL - capitulum (of humerus) antero
- Page 277 and 278: HSV - head shape variable = ln(DEW/
- Page 279 and 280: MSD - mid-shaft dorsoventral or ant
- Page 281 and 282: Ry - ray (as in “digit ray”) S-
- Page 283 and 284: History of descriptive study of the
- Page 285 and 286: illustrations of this material, exc
- Page 287 and 288: astragalus and calcaneum was highly
- Page 289 and 290: discussion of the femur indicates t
- Page 291 and 292: supinator crests. He also noted tha
- Page 293 and 294: that it may not even be an archonta
- Page 295 and 296: unstudied material. Specifically, h
- Page 297 and 298: 5321), some metapodials (MNHN R 529
- Page 299: Gingerich and Gunnell (1992) publis
- Page 303 and 304: euarchontans (Fig. 1.1). Their anal
- Page 305 and 306: for comparison. These include isola
- Page 307 and 308: plesiadapid samples have the same m
- Page 309 and 310: Organization of results Each bone i
- Page 311 and 312: Bloch and Boyer (2002) and N. inter
- Page 313 and 314: clavicle reflects some basic aspect
- Page 315 and 316: Humerus Description.—The right an
- Page 317 and 318: epicondyle actually projects somewh
- Page 319 and 320: cookei is absolutely longer than an
- Page 321 and 322: tuberosity. This crest probably del
- Page 323 and 324: olecranon process to estimate its t
- Page 325 and 326: distinct, convex distal radial face
- Page 327 and 328: of the midcarpal joint), and its pr
- Page 329 and 330: (there is no evidence for more than
- Page 331 and 332: matches the opposing facet on the t
- Page 333 and 334: mobility at the trapezoid-trapezium
- Page 335 and 336: Function.—The three proximal carp
- Page 337 and 338: the bone presently being described:
- Page 339 and 340: the “set 2” MC II is a larger,
- Page 341 and 342: differs from MC II and III in havin
- Page 343 and 344: even more pronounced. The distal en
- Page 345 and 346: etween the distal carpals and the
- Page 347 and 348: have stouter shaft diameters for th
- Page 349 and 350: difference makes them more like kno
prehensility they provide, is an innovation of the ancestor of a clade comprised of<br />
euprimates and plesiadapiforms (but probably excluding dermopterans and treeshrews).<br />
Youlatos and Godinot (2004) quantitatively compared the morphology of P.<br />
tricuspidens and P. n. sp. material from Berru and the early Eocene Le Quesnoy locality,<br />
respectively, to that of a sample of extant terrestrial and arboreal rodents. Much of the<br />
material listed in their table 1 (p. 105) has been figured or mentioned elsewhere (not<br />
including the list from Russell, 1964) including ulnae (MNHN R 546 and MNHN R 443),<br />
radii (MNHN R 550), femora (MNHN BR-16-L, MNHN R 408, MNHN R 444) and<br />
ungual phalanges (MNHN R 5361, MNHN R 5381, MNHN R 5309). Additionally they<br />
analyzed for the first time several new ulnae (MNHN R 411 and MNHN R 615), radii<br />
(MNHN R 553 and MNHN R 597), a femur (MNHN R 407), and claws (MNHN R 612-<br />
613). They also included newly recognized uncatalogued specimens of radii and ungual<br />
phalanges. The authors listed “MNHN R 542” as a proximal ulna. I could not find this<br />
specimen when I visited the MNHN. I did, however, find a proximal ulna with the<br />
number MNHN R 452 and presume that this is the specimen to which the authors<br />
intended to refer. Russell does not list MNHN R 542 as an element of Plesiadapis.<br />
According to Russell (1964: p. 309), “MNHN R 542” is a partial humerus of<br />
Pleursapidotherium aumonieri. Youlatos and Godinot also listed “MNHN R 2527,”<br />
which I could not locate and Russell did not list. Another problem appears to be their<br />
listing of “MNHN R 5370” as a claw; Russell (1964) listed this bone as a metapodial and<br />
Beard (1989) confirmed his identification. Youlatos and Godinot also listed “MNHN R<br />
549” as a claw. Again, I could not locate this element and Russell did not list it as an<br />
ungual. Instead, Russell (1964: p. 309) listed MNHN R 549 under Pleuraspidotherium<br />
273
Change language