Boyer diss 2009 1046..

Therefore, character optimization reveals Plesiadapidae to primitively have exhibited the
“0” state, “flaring nasals.”
For cranial character 18, “Contact between lacrimal and palatine in the orbit,”
Bloch and Silcox (2006) and Bloch et al. (2007) coded Plesiadapidae with a “1”
indicating that the contact is “obscured by maxillofrontal contact.” However, as
discussed in Chapter 2, the only plesiadapid specimens (P. tricuspidens: MNHN CR 126
and the Pellouin skull, P. anceps: YPM-PU 19642) that preserve this region relatively
well are still too ambiguous to code the morphology with confidence. Therefore, I
changed this character state to a “question mark” for all plesiadapids.
For cranial character 19, “Lacrimal tubercle,” Bloch and Silcox (2006) and Bloch
et al. (2007) coded Plesiadapidae as “absent.” However, as discussed in Chapter 2, my
own examination of the only plesiadapid specimen with a well-preserved lacrimal (P.
tricuspidens: MNHN CR 126) reveals the presence of a poorly defined, blunt tubercle,
similar in morphology to that described and illustrated for carpolestids by Bloch and
Silcox (2006). Therefore, I changed the character state to “present” for P. tricuspidens,
which allows the Plesiadapidae to be represented by the “present” state as well.
For cranial character 21, “Foramen rotundum,” Bloch and Silcox (2006) and
Bloch et al. (2007) coded Plesiadapidae with a “1” indicating that the foramen is
“present.” As discussed in Chapter 2, my own inspection of specimens of P. tricuspidens
(MNHN CR 125, MNHN CR 965) leads me to the alternate interpretation. The foramen
previously identified as the superior orbital fissure appears to be a suboptic foramen
because it does not communicate with the endocranium, is variably present, and is
located within the orbitosphenoid. The foramen previously identified as foramen
514