Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Systematics of Miocene apes:
> State of the art of a neverending controversy
> A Urciuoli & DM Alba 2023 JHE 175,103309
> doi 10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103309

The link and the REAL abstract

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248422001695

Abstract
Hominoids diverged from cercopithecoids during
the Oligocene in Afro-Arabia, initially
radiating in that continent and subsequently
dispersing into Eurasia. From the Late Miocene
onward, the geographic range of hominoids
progressively shrank, except for hominins,
which dispersed out of Africa during the
Pleistocene. Although the overall picture of
hominoid evolution is clear based on available
fossil evidence, many uncertainties persist
regarding the phylogeny and paleobiogeography
of Miocene apes (nonhominin hominoids), owing
to their sparse record, pervasive homoplasy,
and the decimated current diversity of this
group. We review Miocene ape systematics and
evolution by focusing on the most parsimonious
cladograms published during the last decade.
First, we provide a historical account of the
progress made in Miocene ape phylogeny and
paleobiogeography, report an updated
classification of Miocene apes, and provide a
list of Miocene ape species-locality
occurrences together with an analysis of their
paleobiodiversity dynamics. Second, we discuss
various critical issues of Miocene ape
phylogeny and paleobiogeography (hylobatid and
crown hominid origins, plus the relationships
of Oreopithecus) in the light of the highly
divergent results obtained from cladistic
analyses of craniodental and postcranial
characters separately. We conclude that
cladistic efforts to disentangle Miocene ape
phylogeny are potentially biased by a
long-branch attraction problem caused by the
numerous postcranial similarities shared
between hylobatids and hominids—despite the
increasingly held view that they are likely
homoplastic to a large extent, as illustrated
by Sivapithecus and Pierolapithecus—and
further aggravated by abundant missing data
owing to incomplete preservation. Finally, we
argue that—besides the recovery of additional
fossils, the retrieval of paleoproteomic data,
and a better integration between cladistics
and geometric morphometrics—Miocene ape
phylogenetics should take advantage of
total-evidence (tip-dating) Bayesian methods
of phylogenetic inference combining
morphologic, molecular, and
chronostratigraphic data. This would hopefully
help ascertain whether hylobatid divergence
was more basal than currently supported.

"Despite the progress made during the last
decades in terms of Miocene ape systematics,
many phylogenetic and paleobiogeographic
uncertainties persist."

"Too many Miocene ape genera are still known
mainly from fragmentary dentognathic remains..."

"Miocene apes are much more diverse than their
extant counterparts, evincing a suite of mosaic
morphologies that are essential to reconstruct
the evolutionary history of the Hominoidea. Here
we review Miocene ape evolution with emphasis on
their phylogenetic relationships and the
paleobiogeographic scenarios that derive from
them. The oldest hominoids from the Oligocene,
Miocene catarrhines of uncertain affinities, and
Late Miocene purported hominins are excluded from
this review."