AFRICAN APE ANCESTRY Hum.Evol.5: 295-297, 1990
It is commonly believed that the australopithecines are more closely related to humans than to African apes.
This view is hardly compatible with the bio-molecular data, which place the Homo/Pan split at the beginning of the australopithecine period.
Nothing in the fossil hominid morphology precludes the possibility that some australopithecines were ancestral to gorillas or chimpanzees, and others to humans.

AUSTRALOPITHECINES: ANCESTORS OF THE AFRICAN APES? Hum.Evol.9: 121-139, 1994
Since australopithecines display human-like traits such as short ilia, rel.small front teeth & thick molar enamel, they are usu.assumed to be related to Homo rather than to Pan or Gorilla.
However, this assumption is not supported by many other of their features.
This paper briefly surveys the literature concerning cranio-dental comparisons of australopith spp with those of bonobos, common chimps, humans & gorillas, adult & immature.
It will be argued, albeit on fragmentary data, that the large australopiths of E.Africa were in many instances anatomically & therefore possibly also evolutionarily nearer to Gorilla than to Pan or Homo,
and the S.African australopiths nearer to Pan & Homo than to Gorilla.
An example of a possible evolutionary tree is provided.
It is suggested that the evidence concerning the relation of the different australopithecines with humans, chimpanzees & gorillas should be re-evaluated.

MORPHOLOGICAL DISTANCE BETWEEN AUSTRALOPITHECINE, HUMAN AND APE SKULLS Hum.Evol.11: 35-41, 1996
This paper attempts to quantify the morphological difference between fossil & living spp of hominoids.
The comparison is based upon a balanced list of cranio-dental characters corrected for size (Wood & Chamberlain, 1986).
The conclusions are:
- cranio-dentally the australopithecine spp are a unique & rather uniform group, much nearer to the great apes than to humans;
- overall, their skull & dentition do not resemble the human more than the chimpanzee’s do.

____

My papers were confirmed a few years later:
our Pliocene ancestors were not even in Africa:

Lineage-Specific Expansions of Retroviral Insertions within the Genomes of African Great Apes but Not Humans and Orangutans
C.T. Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:1-11 doi org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110

Retro-viral infections of the germ-line have the potential to episodically alter gene function & genome structure during the course of evolution.
Horizontal transmissions between spp have been proposed, but little evidence exists for such events in the human/great ape lineage of evolution.
Based on analysis of finished BAC chimpanzee genome sequence, we characterize a RV element (Pan troglodytes endogenous retrovirus-1 PTERV1) that has become integrated in the germline of African great ape & Old World monkey spp, but is absent from humans & Asian ape genomes.
We unambiguously map 287 RV integration sites, and determine: c 95.8 % of the insertions occur at non-orthologous regions between closely related spp.
Phylogenetic analysis of the endogenous RV reveals:
the gorilla & chimpanzee elements share a monophyletic origin with a subset of the Old World monkey RV elements,
but the average sequence divergence exceeds neutral expectation for a strictly nuclear inherited DNA molecule.
Within the chimpanzee, there is a significant integration bias against genes:
only 14 of these insertions map within intronic regions.
6 out of 10 of these genes, for which there are expression data, show significant differences in transcript expression between human & chimp.
Our data are consistent with a RV infection that bombarded the genomes of chimps & gorillas independently & concurrently, 3–4 Ma.
We speculate on the potential impact of such recent events on the evolution of humans & great apes.
______
"Human Fossil Record and Classification"
Hardcover – 27 juli 2020
Alan Van Arsdale
Emphasis on the most important & current research & published finds of human & related primate fossils.
With history of the multi-regional perspective, in which human adaptation & ancestry is not centered in any one place, with free gene-flow between populations acted upon by natural selection.
With a synthesis of multi-regionalism with the recent OoA hypothesis & human genetics incl. the MGD method.
Revisions already made & further revisions needed in the recent OoA hypothesis are discussed, incl. revisions made which were anticipated by neglected professional authors C Loring Brace & Jacques Ruffie.
Principles of inter- & intra-specific gene-flow & HGT as related to human & great ape adaptations discussed.
Advances in other fields (mammalogy, biology, paleontology, MGD genetics & medicine, which have not been generally integrated into Western PA) are discussed.
Internet search engines & interactive social media were used + library research, to seek out more relevant refs.

Marc Verhaegen wrote:

> AUSTRALOPITHECINES: ANCESTORS OF THE AFRICAN APES?

They may be, but I don't think it's that simple.

There was a waterside population. Groups peeled off, pushed inland and
adapted. This kept happening over eons... they remained co fertile, so their
evolution was moderated by the influx of new DNA from members of the
waterside population pushing inland...

The further they got from that waterside population -- the further west and
south -- the less moderation.

It's the same concept as a Ring Species, where the further the move along
the ring, the more unique they become. Well, "Ring" is just a concept, a
line works just as good. Any barrier to interbreeding works.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/732179329688207360