Given "wether they truly represent ‘living fossils’", why not opt for a graph visualising the (inferred) evolutionary change and morphological diversity such as a phylogram or distance-based network? Rather than the usual (in palaeontological papers) cladogram, which only summarises (here) the Bayesian sampled topologies but doesn't give any information about the branch lengths.

One option here is to just use the Bayesian MCC tree, which picks the tree among the Bayesian sampled topologies having the overall highest score regarding clade credibility.

Another would just run a ML analysis, which always picks one, in the ideal case the most-optimal, tree. Both fast ML programmes, RAxML and IQTree, can handle multistate characters.

PS If one would be interested in the alternative branching patterns behind the two trichotomies, Bayesian tree samples can also be summed up using consensus networks

PS Note that consensus trees (here: Bayesian MRC) are not phylogenetic trees by themselves but merely summaries of alternative, equally optimal, dichotomous phylogenetic trees. Regarding the underlying data, they are summaries of summaries