User:Jpete17/Graecopithecus

Response
In 2018, Fuss, Spassov, Böhme, and Begun published a response to Benoit and Thackeray, claiming that their original publication had been misrepresented and misconstrued. The conclusion of the 2017 paper had not been that Graecopithecus was certainly a hominid, but that its status as a hominid could not be ruled out, and that more research and evidence would be needed to make a conclusion —a conclusion that Benoit and Thackeray make in their own paper as well. Fuss et al. also point out that, contrary to what Benoit and Thackeray write, they did not judge canine root derivation of Graecopithecus and Salehanthropus against each other, stating that the differences between them were within the range of sexual variation. Additionally, when Benoit and Thackeray claim that the characteristics mentioned in the 2017 paper are not unique to Hominini, they do not mention that the 2017 paper discusses canine root size and premolar root complexity reduction, which could be indications of Hominini. Benoit and Thackeray also refer to taxonomy that combines Graecopithecus and Ouranopithecus, despite the two generally being considered to be separate species, with Graecopithecus being more closely related to hominins than Ouranopithecus.

Fuss et al. emphasize that they do not present Graecopithecus as being a hominid without question, but that it has traits similar to hominids, and that more evidence is needed before Graecopithecus's status as a hominid can be confirmed or rejected.