Dr. T. Tóth szerk.: Studia historico-anthropologica (Anthropologia Hungarica 21. Budapest, 1990)

indicate that several morphotypes are present. However, the specimens' division for Rama- and Sivapithecus, does not coincide with the groups of different morphotypes. Both M3 teeth of the Ouranopithecus from Macedonia are sharply different from those of any other Late Neogene Hominoids. The cingulum is present, the fovea anterior is missing and the teeth display a complicated pattern. The same morphotype occurs only in the holotype of the Proconsul major and in the Pasalar material. The European Upper Miocene Hominoids including Rudapithecus hungaricus have no cingulum and their morphotype frequency has two peak values, showing, on the one hand, the complicated, and on the other, the simpler patterns. However, it is interesting that remains of the same species from the same locality appear in both morphotype groups (Hispanopithecus, Rudapithecus). Contrary to the Pasalar finds the morphotype variation of the specimens belonging to this group is small. The Siwalik Hills finds that had been formerly classified into different taxa (Sivapithecus indicus, Rudapithecus punjabicus, Brahmapithecus thorpei, Dryopithecus sivalensis, Dr. frickae, Dr. cautkey) present their frequency maximum in case of the same morphotypes as Late Miocene European Hominoids. The peaks of the maximums show only a slight shift of morphotypes. The peak shifted from the European morphotype 22121 to 22122 refers to the lack of fovea posterior. In another case the peak was received from the European 22221 to the 22222, i.e. the fovea posterior was reduced again. So far the determination of the morphotype of the 7 Hominids lower third molar has been performed (Table 1) of which each specimen is different. Cingulum can be found with Australopithecus (Sterkfontein, 526) and with Homo habi lis remains of Olduwai (OH-4 and OH-27). A morphotype without cingulum was also found (OH-13) in this latter locality. No morphotype of the Hominids coincides with the morphotype peaks of the Hominoids. ft would be too early to draw further conclusions due to the insufficient number of available data. However, it is probable, that the characters used for the Hominoids cannot be directly applied for the Hominids. PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF THE HOMINOIDEA MORPHOTYPES The analysis of tooth morphology is the soundest and most useful method in the 200-year history of Vertebrate paleontology. Ks application is especially fruitful where the morphological structure changes rapidly, characteristically, on species level, and the changed can be placed in phylogenetic line. However, the speed of the morphotype evolution is slow and the pattern of the tooth crown is unified in the majority of cases of the large mammals. The teeth of Primates belong to this group and that is why the following theoretical questions must be answered in the course of this analysis: 1. How do the morphological characters change during evolution? 2. Does the population of a species have a significant morphotype version, or a definite marker on species level? 3. Are there morphological succession lines and do they coincide with bio-phylogenetic results? In the course of the joint evaluation of the studied five factors (cingulum, fovea anterior, appearance of the extra conulus between the meta- and entoconid and hypoconulid, respectively, fovea posterior) it can be clearly seen (Fig. 3) that the cingulum is present with the primitive species, in case of the Hominoids, and later the number of specimens with cingulum is gradually decreasing and finally completely disappears by the Late Neogene. I.e. the cingulum is not a definite marker on species level but a general, transpecific feature of the evolution of Hominoids. Since the presence or absence of the cingulum is the fundamental factor (1st digit) in the arrangement of the five-character M3 morphotype code, the populations can be divided into two welldistinguishable groups. Cingulum is characteristic for almost all Miocene African Hominoids, for the Dryopithecus from the Badenian, for the majority of the finds from Pasalar and for the Ouranopithecus. However, it is missing from 'Sivapithecus africanus', and from the Turolian Hominoids of Europe and those of Siwalik. This way it is probable that when comparing the fivecharacter morphotypes (Fig. 3) otherwise similar morphotypes can be separated from each other. The second and fifth characters refer to similar morphological features, i.e. the presence of the anterior and posterior foveae, respectively. Basically the same relation systems can be observed as in