Boyer diss 2009 1046..

is actually distinct from Carpolestidae in lacking the first two features, that plesiadapids
might not exhibit the third feature (based on MNHN CR 126 and the Pellouin skull of
Plesiadapis tricuspidens), and that only P. tricuspidens exhibits the fourth character state.
A petrosal bulla, the fifth feature, does seem to characterize plesiadapids, but I would
consider this interpretation for carpolestids as tentative (better fossil material is needed).
Thus, none of the cranial features thought to characterize both plesiadapids and
carpolestids in Bloch et al. (2007) can be demonstrated as definite points of similarity
after careful scrutiny and reanalysis of the relevant specimens. In light of this conclusion,
it is therefore surprising that the modified version of the Bloch et al. (2007) matrix
produced results identical to the original.
Further consideration of the Bloch et al. (2007) matrix reveals the likely reason
why revisions to the cranial and postcranial codings had no effect on the topologies that
resulted: many of the features that phylogenetically link plesiadapids with carpolestids
are dental features. In the Bloch et al. (2007) character matrix, there are at least 21 out of
80 (~26%) dental characters in which plesiadapids and carpolestids are similar to one
another and different from paromomyid plesiadapiforms. It seems unlikely that most or
even many of these could be easily demonstrated as convergences. Another possibility is
that many of these dental features are actually primitive retentions — as would be the
case in a tree with completely inverted polarity for these characters. Such a phylogenetic
hypothesis would be quite radical, however, because the “plesiadapoid + euprimate” node
is similar to the paromomyid node in the reconstructed states for most of these characters,
meaning that a tree with such an inverted polarity would likely result in plesiadapids and
carpolestids being outside of a clade comprised of some other plesiadapoids, euprimates
521