Boyer diss 2009 1046..

differs from MC II and III in having a shaft that bows slightly ulnarly instead of radially.
The proximal end hamate facet of MC IV has a surface area of 6.81 mm 2 .
The “set 2” MC IV is represented by complete right and left side elements (Fig.
4.16C). They are essentially similar to the “set 1” MC IV morphologically but differ in
being slightly larger. The proximal end hamate facet of the “set 2” MC IV has a surface
area of 8.49 mm 2 . The bone is similar to the other “set 2” metacarpals in having a
dorsoventrally deep distal end. It differs from the “set 2” MC III in being slightly longer.
Addtionally the mediolateral asymmetry of the head is mirrored compared to MC II and
III’s of both sets (i.e., the ulnar side of the distal end is more gradually sloping than the
radial side).
Metacarpal V description.—The “set 1” MC V is similar to the other set 1
metacarpals in the proportional dorsoventral depth of its distal end (Fig. 4.14E; Table
4.12). It is further similar to other described metacarpals (of both sets) in most aspects of
the distal end morphology (i.e., spherical shape of the dorsal aspect of the distal articular
facet, presence of pits for collateral ligaments with tuberosities flanking these pits).
While identification of the other metacarpal positions is relatively straightforward, bones
with morphology nearly identical to that described here as MC V have been previously
described as MC II by Beard (1989, 1990) and Godinot and Beard (1991) for both N.
intermedius and P. tricuspidens. Some history of study and comparative evidence must
be reviewed briefly to support the different interpretation used here.
Debate over the attribution of this bone was discussed in Godinot and Beard
(1991). The authors indicate that one of them originally identified MNHN R 5305 as a
MC V. Accordingly, this fossil was compared to MC V of Daubentonia in their figure 1.
313