Could be. When dealing with prehistoric animals, new fossils and evidence may indicate minor alterations to the current theoretical lines of descent. Scientific theories are often subject to revision. Newton to Einstein to Hawking and all that.
Now, while you've been focusing on minutia, the larger question is, so what?
Some evidence used to support Darwinian evolution, in fact a highly regarded piece of evidence, lies in ruin. It calls into question the validity of the modelling done in the constructing the trees of relatedness using the techniques which provided the trees for the mesonychus and the pakicetus. And it shows the necessity of something akin to the double blind in the field of fossil analysis.
Your answer also demonstrates what many have been pointing out for so long. That Darwinism is nothing but a "religious" viewpoint, separate from the question of evolution.