> As for *Pseudorycteropus* ("order" Bibymalagasia)
What's this? The only bibymalagasian I know of is
_Plesiorycteropus_. While MacPhee described this taxon in
great depth, and compared it with all placental groups, he
didn't ally it with any other group. I don't think anyone has
incorporated bibymalagasians into any phylogenetic study,
but at least a few workers have said that they think that they
might be allied to (or part of) the aardvarks after all.
The phylogenetic position of _Eurotamandua_ has been
discussed at length in...
Szalay, F. S. & Schrenk, F. 1998. The Middle Eocene
_Eurotamandua_ and a Darwinian phylogenetic analysis of
?edentates?. _Kaupia_ 7, 97-186.
Delsuc, F., Catzeflis, F. M., Stanhope, M. J. & Douzery, E.
J. P. 2001. The evolution of armadillos, anteaters and sloths
depicted by nuclear and mitochondrial phylogenies:
implications for the status of the enigmatic fossil
Eurotamandua. _Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London B_ 268, 1605-1615.
Szalay and Schrenk showed that _Eurotamandua_ lacks
xenarthrous articulations and thus is not even a xenarthran
(and it only appears superficially similar to _Eomanis
waldi_ [which probably is a true pangolin: _Eomanis
krebsi_ is a juvenile of _Eurotamandua_]) and they also
excluded close affinities with pangolins (contra Shoshani et
al. 1997) and palaeanodonts (contra McKenna 1987). They
conclude that it is representative of a distinct lineage, the
Afredentata, which has an otherwise unknown fossil record.
In their phylogram however they posit lose relations with
palaeanodonts and xenarthrans.