Matskási István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 79. (Budapest 1987)
Kordos, L.: Description and reconstruction of the skull of Rudapithecus hungaricus Kretzoi (Mammalia)
palatus Kretzoi. A robust form of bigger size than Rudapithecus; high vaulted palate; relatively hypsodont post canines with marked cingula, roughly sculptured, thick enamel surface. The dimensions of M x —M z are about 37-38 mm. Holotype: Rud-7 (Fig. 4a —c), paratype: Rud-14 (Fig 5 a, b)". This description which at the same time can be also considered as a diagnosis, was a year later significantly refined (KRETZOI 1975), the larger size became questionable, and the marked cingula and thick enamel surface were already omitted from this description. Considering its size the RUD-77 find belongs to the Bodvapithecus category but at the same time the high vaulted palate, which was considered a differentia specifica, is replaced by the flat palate that is characteristic for Rudapithecus. It seems probable that Kretzoi mixed up the buccal and lingual sides of RUD-7 when describing the palate and that is why he stated that Bodvapithecus had a high palate. Concerning the further characteristics of the maxilla and the upper teeth no significant differences could be found between Rudapithecus hungaricus and the holotype of the Bodvapithecus altipalatus, so the latter is considered to be synonymous with Rudapithecus. Based on the teeth of the face find RUD-71 found in 1978 KRETZOI (1984) described Ataxopithecus serus subgen. et sp. n. a taxon classified in the Rangwapithecus genus. However, due to insufficient data, on the basis of the description and figures this taxon cannot as yet be accepted. Based on its size and orbits it is possible that RUD-71 and RUD-77 belong to the same taxon. As a summary, it can be concluded that the RUD-77 skull belongs to taxon Rudapithecus hungaricus KRETZOI, 1967: the completely closed cranial sutures and the moderately worn permanent dentition refer to an aged ape and because of the lack of the sagittal crest it was probably female. For comparison with other skull finds only Proconsul africanus (M. 32363 in London and KNM-RU 7290 in Nairobi), Sivapithecus indicta (GSP 15000), and the Chinese Sivapithecus lufengensis (PA 644, PA 676, PA 677) arc suitable. The deformed skull of Proconsul africanus HOPWOOD was described by CLARK and LEAKEY (1951) and further details have been given by ANDREWS (1978). The reconstruction of the skull was first carried out by DAVIS & NAPIER (1963, in WOLPOFF 1980), then after the preparation of the find repeated by WALKER et al. (1983). While the calvaria of the former reconstruction, in its basic form, agrees with that of RUD-77, after the second reconstruction the same feature, in the shortness and steep descend of the nuchal is significantly different. If the more reliable reconstruction by Walker et al. is considered as the basis of comparison, the skull without the sagittal crest and supraorbital tori, the very much shortened face, and the straight zygomatic bone can be considered as identical. The form of the occipital bone, the different sizes of the incisors, the difference of the diastema between the upper C and P, and several characteristics of the dentition (cingulum, Af 3 reduction) involve basic differences at a generic level. At the same time, however, in spite of the differing geological age and the geographical distance, the common features can be considered synapomorphies that refer to phylogenetic affinity. Sivapithecus indicus from Pakistan (GSP 15000), based on PILBEAM'S (1982) description, •can be considered the ancestor of today's Pongo. Common features of the face and maxilla find with RUD-77 are the "D"-shaped orbits, the straight zygomatic bone, and the supraorbital region without tori. The fundamental differences are the following: the interorbital region is wide in RUD-77 and narrow in GSP 15000; the lateral contours of the cranium, the shape and size of the maxillary arch, the shortened and elongated form of the face, and the sizes of the incisors as compared to each other (for this latter see RUD-12). The Sivapithecus from Pakistan is completely different from the Rudapithecus. This seems to prove the validity of the idea that Sivapithecus indicus, S. meteai and S. punjabicus belong to the orang-like family (Pongidae), while Rudapithecus (s.l. Dryopithecus) is a member of the Hominidae <PILBEAM 1982; ANDREWS & CRONIN 1982; SCHWARTZ 1984).
