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

case of the joint application of the five factors. Only the holotype of Pr. major differs from the others among the Proconsul species. The Afropithecus (simpler) and the Turkanopithecus (more complicated) are different morphotypes. The European Badenian Dryopithecus belongs to the same range as the majority of the Proconsuls. The Pasalar population is extremely varied also in this respect because its majority belongs to the most complicated category. The European Turolian Hominoids belong to the morphotype characterized by fovea on the anterior and posterior side. A part of the Siwalik finds also belongs here, however, the majority has fovea anterior while the posterior one is missing. The Ouranopithecus a marginal version as well as two finds from Siwalik and two from Pasalar have no fovea. Our conclusion is that the appearance or lack of the anterior or posterior fovea are not trend-like definitive evolutional features as is the cingulum. Statistically they are characteristic of the Hominoids of a given locality but they are not markers on the species level. These two features together are suitable for observing the trend of change in tooth morphology (simplification or complication) in case of succession lines considered to be continuous and they are also suitable to create a hypothesis concerning the improbability of succession. The 3rd and 4th of the five characters of the code reflect the appearance of the extra conulus, i.e. how complicated is the pattern of the tooth crown. Based on these two factors, the analyses of the Hominoids show the same characteristic features as characters 2 and 5. A more important difference is that the variation scale of the Pasalar material is smaller, while that of the Siwalik finds is significantly greater than in case of the fovea anterior and posterior. The appearance of the extra consulus greatly differs from the formerly interpreted features in the case of the two Ouranopithecus teeth. No direct connection can be proved between the appearance of the posterior extra conulus and that of the posterior fovea. They are completely independent from each other. Finally a comparison was made to show the difference from a selected predominant morphotype. The richest material comes from Siwalik where the five-character morphotype shows a welldistinguishable predominance peak (22122). Among the Hominoids this population is the youngest, so in principle, it means the evolved final stage of the evolutionary line. The diagram of morphotype variation (Fig. 4) shows rather average values, excluding the 'cingulum-effect' but basically the results are the same. Now the following answers can be given to our questions: 1. Among the 5 analyzed morphological features the disappearance (reduction) of the cingulum is a general, evolutionary phenomenon with the Hominoids that is not or hardly influenced by the factors influencing the population. Contrary to the cingulum the other four characteristics, do not change in a trend-like manner but depend on given impacts determining the population. That is why they are suitable for studying succession lines. 2. The lower third molar of the Hominoids does not coincide with categories differentiated on the generic and species level by other characteristics. An excellent example is that the morphotypes of Sivapithecus and Rudapithecus do coincide, while they differ in several skull characteristics. The morphotypes developed on the individual level while the variations on the population level. The speed of evolutionary change of morphotypes is so slow that it is on a higher than generic but lower than familiar level. 3. The morphotypes of the third molar of Hominoids show definite evolutionary lines and their termination. Based on the above paragraph these changes are manifested in higher than generic level trends. On the basis of morphotype analysis the following succession lines and relations can be supposed: - The Proconsul species form one morphotype group, their morphological successors are the Afropithecus and Turkanopithecus, followed by the Middle Miocene Dryopithecus. - The Pasalar Hominoids cannot be considered homogenous, though indicate an African origin comprising specialized forms. - The Ouranopithecus is completely different from the other Hominoids and has morphotype relations only with the Proconsuls. - The European Turolian 'Dryopithecus' (Dr. brancoi, Dr. rhenanus, Hispanopithecus, Dryopithecus from Can Uobateres, Rudapithecus) form a joint morphotype group differing only slightly from the Hominoids of Siwalik (Sivapithecus). If the interpretation of the morphotype succession lines is correct the Hominoids emigration starting out from Africa some 10-15 myrs ago to Europe and then to Eurasia can be clearly seen which makes the re-evaluation of the higher systematic units necessary.