Dr. T. Tóth szerk.: Studia historico-anthropologica (Anthropologia Hungarica 20. Budapest, 1988)

In the Chinese finds there is a diasteme between the canine and the lateral incisor. In the Rudabánya finds this hiatus is very small (RUD-12, -15). In both groups of finds the canines of the females are small. In the Lufeng finds the premolars are wider than in the Rudabánya finds, especially in the talon region. The succession of the measurements of the molars is the same in both groups, namely, the crown of M

2 is the largest, followed by those of the M

3 and M

1 teeth. The linguo-buccal cross-sections of the crown surfaces in premolars and molars show significant differences. In the Rudabánya find on both sides the enamel bends highly upwards, enciroling a deeply arched, concave region. In the Chinese specimens this arch is flatter, the crowns are more "flattened". The M of the RUD-77 find is not rectangular but rather of a trapezoid form which becomes narrower backwards. The respective tooth in P. A. 677 is rather quadratic. This basic form of M

3 in all the investigated Rudabánya specimens (RUD-18, RUD-45, RUD-77) is identical. In the Chinese finds, however, this shape varies (e.g. P.A. 658 in WU RUKANG & al. 1985). The following differences may be observed in the morphology of the occlusal surfaces of the upper teeth: the cusps and the ridges are sharp in the Rudabánya finds and in the adult specimens the fossae do not contain smaller plicas and tubercles. The opposite can be observed in the Lufeng upper teeth. RESULTS Comparison of the Lufeng and Rudabánya female skulls led me to conclude the following essential morphological similarities and differences: - the basic forms of the calvarias are identical - the developments of the temporal lines are identical - there is no sagittal crest in either finds - the interorbital distance is wide in both specimens - the supraorbital tori are absent in RUD-77 but to a slight degree present in P.A. 677 - there are significant differences in the shape of the orbits. They are D-shaped in the Rudabánya find while in the one from Lufeng they are rectangular with rounded corners - in Sivapithecus lufengensis the frontal bone is higher in frontal view than in Rudapithecus hungaricus. The zygomatic bone is wider in the Chinese find than in the one from Rudabánya - the zygomatic regions are very similar to each other in lateral view - the subnasal alveolar region belongs to the "Asian" type in the case of the Lufeng find and to the "African" type in the case of the Rudabánya skull - on the basis of its palate height, Rudapithecus belongs to the "low palate" group while Sivapithecus lufengensis belongs to the "high palate" group - in frontal view the axes of the upper teeth converge downward in the Rudapithecus find but they diverge in the Lufeng one - the maxillary dental arch of the Rudabánya skull is "U-shaped", but it is slightly "Vshaped" in the Sivapithecus lufengensis skull - there is a great difference in the measurements of the central and lateral incisors of Sivapithecus lufengensis, while their measurements are the same in Rudapithecus - in the Chinese finds the diasteme between the canine and the incisor is large, while in the Rudabánya find it is smaller - the molars differ from each other as regards their linguobuccal sections and the micromorphology of their occlusal surfaces. Summarizing the investigated characteristics, I may state that in the cerebral regions there is a great similarity between RUD-77 and P.A. 677 skulls while as regards the morphology of the facial parts, fundamental differences can be observed. These similarities and differences between the two skulls represent also similarities and differences existing between the taxa Rudapithecus hungaricus and Sivapithecus lufengensis

. The Rudabánya find, which is the older one - together with the European finds - and the younger Lufeng (SE-Asian) early apes have such evolutionary characteristics which are manifested in a deceleration of the development of the cerebral region of the skull and in an important morphological-phylogenetical development of the facial part. On the basis of all these I conclude that Rudapithecus hungaricus is not identical with Sivapithecus lufengensis, neither could it be the direct ancestor of the Chinese form.