> >> PAs find hundreds of fossil hominins in the Pliocene of Africa,

> >Yes, they find 100s of fossil Pan & Gorilla in Africa & Pongo in Asia,

Kudu runner:

> "There are no fossil taxa recovered as members of the Gorilla or Pan clades."

:-D
Yes, the kudu runners first *assume* that P & G had no BP ancestors (completely wrong),
then conclude that BP apiths were no P or G relatives...

But *all hominoids* had BP ancestors, of course, google e.g. "aquarboreal".

More specifically detailed comparisons leave no doubt:
-E.Afr.apiths most resemble Gorilla: they were fossil relatives of Gorilla,
-S.Afr.apiths resemble Pan = fossil Pan, e.g.

Ape-like features in australopith crania
• “The evolution of the australopithecine crania was the antithesis of the Homo line. Instead of becoming less ape-like, as in Homo, they become more ‘ape-like’. The robust Australopithecus did not evolve from a big-toothed pongid ancestor with large cranial superstructures, but from a small-toothed hominid with a rounder, smoother ectocranium, like A.africanus”. Ferguson 1989
• “Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated [enamel] growth periods relative to modern man, similar to those of the modem great apes”. Bromage & Dean 1985
• “Enamel thickness has been secondarily reduced in the African apes and also, although at a different rare and extent, in the orang-utan. Thick enamel, previously the most important characteristic in arguments about the earliest hominid, does not therefore identify a hominid”. Martin 1985
• In the S.African fossils including Taung, “sulcal patterns of 7 australopithecine encocasts appear to be ape-like rather than human-like”. Falk 1987
• “Cranial capacity, the relationship between endocast and skull, sulcal pattern, brain shape and cranial venous sinuses, all of these features appear to be consistent with an ape-like external cortical morphology in Hadar early hominids”. Falk 1985
• In the type specimen of A.afarensis, “the lower third premolar of ‘A.africanus afarensis’ LH-4 is completely apelike”. Ferguson 1987
• “A.afarensis is much more similar cranially to the modern African apes than to modern humans”. Schoenemann 1989
• “Olson's assertion that the lateral inflation of the A.L.333-45 mastoids is greater than in any extant ape is incorrect if the fossil is compared to P.troglodytes males or some Gorilla males and females. Moreover, the pattern of pneumatization in A.afarensis is also found only in the extant apes among other hominoids”. Kimbel cs 1984
• “Prior to the identification of A.afarensis the asterionic notch was thought to characterize only the apes among hominoids. Kimbel and Rak relate this asterionic sutural figuration to the pattern of cranial cresting and temporal bone pneumatization shared by A.afarensis and the extant apes”. Kimbel cs 1984
• “... the fact that two presumed Paranthropus [robustus] skulls were furnished with high sagittal crests implied that they had also possessed powerful occipital crests and ape-like planum nuchale... Nuchal crests which are no more prominent - and indeed some less prominent - will be found in many adult apes”. Zuckerman 1954
• In Sts.5, MLD-37/38, SK-47, SK-48, SK-83, Taung, KNM-ER 406, O.H.24 & O.H.5, “craniometric analysis showed that they had marked similarities to those of extant pongids. These basicranial similarities between Plio-Pleistocene hominids and extant apes suggest that the upper respiratory systems of these groups were also alike in appearance... Markedly flexed basicrania [are] found only in modern humans after the second year...”. Laitman & Heimbuch 1982
• “The total morphological pattern with regard to the nasal region of Australopithecus can be characterized by a flat, non-protruding nasal skeleton which does not differ qualitatively from the extant nonhuman hominoid pattern, one which is in marked contrast to the protruding nasal skeleton of modern H.sapiens”. Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988

Gorilla-like features in large E.African australopith crania

• “Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”. Ryan & Johanson 1989
• The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens “looked very much like a small female gorilla”. Johanson & Edey 1981:351
• “Other primitive [or advanced gorilla-like? M. V.] features found in KNM-WT 17000, but not know or much discussed for A.afarensis, are: very small cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria; nasals extended far above the frontomaxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”. Walker cs 1986
• As for the maximum parietal breadth and the biauriculare in O.H.5 and KNM-ER 406 “the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean: both the pongids and the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy 1991
• In O.H.5, “the curious and characteristic features of the Paranthropus skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla”. Robinson 1960
• The A.boisei “lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history”. Leakey & Walker 1988
• A. boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”. Beynon & Wood 1986

Chimp-like features in S.African australopith crania

• “Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Australopithecus robustus teeth and they fall into the fruit-eating category. More precisely, their teeth patterns look like those of chimpanzees... Then, when be looked at some Homo erectus teeth, be found that the pattern changed”. Leakey 1981:74-75
• “The ‘keystone’ nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic of Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids, particularly clearly in some chimpanzees”. Eckhardt 1987
• “P.paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5]; they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and.... even in cranial and facial features”. Zihlman cs 1978
• “A.africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan troglodytes, is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous”". Ferguson 1989
• In Taung, “I see nothing in the orbits, nasal bones, and canine teeth definitely nearer to the human condition than the corresponding parts of the skull of a modern young chimpanzee”. Woodward 1925
• “The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimpanzee more closely than it resembles L338y-6”, a juvenile A. boisei. Rak & Howell 1978.
• “In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung and Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to those of the extant chimpanzee”. Bromage 1985
• “I estimate an adult capacity for Taung ranging from 404-420 cm2, with a mean of 412 cm2. Application of Passingham’s curve for brain development in Pan is preferable to that for humans because (a) brain size of early hominids approximates that of chimpanzees, and (b) the curves for brain volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids and australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude that ‘as with pongids, the australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in design’”. Falk 1987
• In Taung, “pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma and hard palate. This is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimpanzees and robust australopithecines among higher primates”. Bromage & Dean 1985
• “That the fossil ape Australopithecus [Taung] ‘is distinguished from all living apes by the... unfused nasal bones…’ as claimed by Dart (1940), cannot be maintained in view of the very considerable number of cases of separate nasal bones among orang-utans and chimpanzees of ages corresponding to that of Australopithecus”. Schultz 1941

> https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2021.103140
Phylogenetic analysis of Middle-Late Miocene apes
Kelsey D Pugh 2022 JHE 165,103140 doi org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2021.103140
Despite intensive study, many aspects of the evolutionary history of great apes & humans (Hominidae) are not well understood:
the phylogenetic relationships of many fossil taxa remain poorly resolved.
This study aims to provide an updated hypothesis of phylogenetic relationships for mid-late-Miocene fossil apes, focusing on those taxa typically considered to be great apes. The character matrix compiled here samples 274 characters from the skull, dentition & postcranium. Multiple iterations were performed to examine the effects of ingroup taxon selection, outgroup constraints, treatment of continuous data, character partitions (craniodental, postcranial) & missing data. Parsimony & Bayesian methods were used to infer phylogenetic relationships. Most European hominoids (Hispano-, Ruda-, Dryo-, Pierolapithecus) are recovered as stem-hominids, not more closely related to orangs or to Afr.apes+humans (Homininae), Ourano-, Graeco- & Nakalipithecus are inferred to be members of the hominine clade.
Asian fossil hominoids (except Lufengpith.hudienensis) are recovered as Ponginae.
Results suggest:
-Kenya- & Griphopithecus are possible stem-hominids,
-Equatorius & Nacholapithecus are consistently recovered as stem-hominoids.
-Oreo- & Samburupithecus are not recovered as hominids.
Results of Bayesian analyses differ from parsimony analyses.
Cranio-dental & post-cranial character partitions are incongruent in the placement of hylobatids:
did hylobatids & hominids independently evolve adaptations to suspensory behaviors?
An understanding of phylogenetic relationships is necessary to address many of PA questions:
the updated hypothesis of phylogenetic relationships presented here can be used to gain a better understanding of important morphological transitions that took place during hominid evolution, ancestral morphotypes at key nodes & the bio-geography of the clade.

:-) This paper is in full agreement with my view (my book "De evolutie van de mens" Acad.Uitg. Eburon 2022 Utrecht NL p.299-300):
BP great apes c 20 Ma dispersed in swamp forests (google "aquarboreal") along the N-Tethys ocean coasts + inland along rivers etc.,
the Mesopotamian Seaway closure c 15 Ma split hominids W (Medit.Sea coasts) & pongids E (Ind.Ocean coasts),
of the hominids, only those along the (incipient) Red Sea survived: Gorilla & Homo-Pan:
-G went inland c 8-7 Ma ->Afar: incipient northern Rift->afarensis (Lucy)->boisei,
-the Red Sea opened into the Gulf 6-5 Ma (according to Francesca Mansfield 5.33 Ma: Zanclean megaflood):
-P followed the E.Afr.coastal forests ->inland ->incipient southern Rift ->Transvaal etc.
-parallel late-Plio->Pleist.evolution: afarensis->boisei->gorilla // africanus->robustus->paniscus-troglodytes,
-Plio-Pleist.Homo followed the Ind.Ocean coasts ->Java etc.

Simple, no? :-)
Google "human evolution Verhaegen".

Only incredible imbeciles believe their Plio-Pleist.ancestors ran after kudus.