Many traditional paleo-anthropologists still assume that apiths are closer relatives of us than of Afr.apes: they believe we descend from some sort of chimp or gorilla!! :-D They confuse "primitive" with "advanced apelike"..

I've read +-all PA papers until 1994 & later. From my 1994 Hum.Evol.paper (shortened a bit), but afterwards confirmed over+over:
Gorilla (fossil subgenus "Praeanthropus") afarensis-->boisei evolved in parallel with Pan (fossil subgenus "Australopithecus") africanus-->robustus:
IMO both lineages evolved (Gorilla in the N-Rift // Pan in the S-Rift) from late-Pliocene "gracile" --> early-Pleist."robust" (google "aquarboreal"):

Some quotations on ape-like features in australopith crania
• “The evolution of the australopith crania was the anti-thesis of the Homo line. Instead of becoming less ape-like, as in Homo, they become more ‘ape-like’. Cranial proportions & ecto-cranial features that were thought to be unique among pongids evolved separately [no! MV] in the australopiths parallel [no! MV] with the great apes. KNM-WT 17000, therefore, is not as ‘primitive’ as it looks: it did not evolve from a big-toothed pongid ancestor with large cranial super-structures, but from a small-toothed hominid with a rounder,smoother ectocranium, like africanus”. Ferguson 1989
• “Plio-Pleist.hominids had markedly abbreviated [enamel] growth periods rel.to modern man, similar to the modern great apes”. Bromage & Dean 1985
• “Enamel thickness has been secondarily reduced in the African apes and also, although at a different rate and extent, in the orang. Thick enamel, previously the most important characteristic in arguments about the earliest hominid, does not therefore identify a hominid”. Martin 1985
• In the S.African fossils incl.Taung, “sulcal patterns of 7 australopith encocasts appear to be ape-like rather than human-like”. Falk 1987
• “Cranial capacity, the relationship between endocast & skull, sulcal pattern, brain shape & cranial venous sinuses, all of these features appear to be consistent with an ape-like external cortical morphology in Hadar early hominids”. Falk 1985
• In the type-spm of A.afarensis, “the lower 3rd premolar of ‘A.africanus afarensis’ LH-4 is completely apelike”. Ferguson 1987
• “A.afarensis is much more similar cranially to the modern African apes than to modern humans”. Schoenemann 1989
• “Olson's assertion that the lateral inflation of the A.L.333-45 mastoids is greater than in any extant ape is incorrect if it is compared to P.troglodytes males or some Gorilla males & females. The pattern of pneumatization in afarensis is also found only in the extant apes among other hominoids”. Kimbel cs 1984
• “Prior to the identification of afarensis, the asterionic notch was thought to characterize only the apes among hominoids. Kimbel & Rak relate this asterionic sutural figuration to the pattern of cranial cresting & temporal bone pneumatization shared by afarensis & the extant apes”. Kimbel cs 1984
• “...that 2 presumed Par.[robustus] skulls were furnished with high sagittal crests implied that they had also possessed powerful occipital crests and ape-like planum nuchale... Nuchal crests which are no more prominent (indeed some less prominent) will be found in many adult apes”. Zuckerman 1954
• In Sts.5, MLD-37/38, SK-47, SK-48, SK-83, Taung, KNM-ER 406, O.H.24 & O.H.5, “craniometric analysis showed that they had marked similarities to extant pongids. These basi-cranial similarities between Plio-Pleistocene hominids & extant apes suggest: the upper respiratory systems of these groups were also ape-like in appearance... Markedly flexed basicrania [are] found only in modern humans after the 2nd yr...”. Laitman & Heimbuch 1982
• “The total morphological pattern with regard to the nasal region of Australopithecus can be characterized by a flat, non-protruding nasal skeleton which does not differ qualitatively from the extant non-human hominoid pattern, in marked contrast to the protruding nasal skeleton of modern H.sapiens”. Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988 (ext.nose only in Homo)

Quotations on gorilla-like features in large E.African australopith crania:
• “Incisal dental microwear in afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”. Ryan & Johanson 1989
• The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 spms “looked very much like a small female gorilla”. Johanson & Edey 1981:351
• “Other primitive [advanced gorilla-like!! MV] features found in KNM-WT 17000, but not know or much discussed for afarensis, are: very small cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria; nasals extended far above the fronto-maxillar suture, well onto an uninflated glabella; extremely convex infero-lateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”. Walker cs 1986
• As for the max.parietal breadth & the bi-auriculare in O.H.5 & KNM-ER 406 “the robust australopiths have values near the Gorilla mean: both the pongids & the robust australopiths have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy 1991
• In O.H.5, “the curious and characteristic features of the Paranthropus skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla”. Robinson 1960
• The boisei “lineage has been characterized by sex.dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history”. Leakey & Walker 1988
• P.boisei teeth showed “a rel.absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”. Beynon & Wood 1986

Quotations on chimp-like features in S.African australopith crania:
• “Alan [Walker] has analysed a nr of robustus teeth, they fall into the fruit-eating category: their teeth patterns look like those of chimps... Then, when be looked at some H.erectus teeth, he found that the pattern changed”. Leakey 1981:74-75
• “The ‘keystone’ nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic of [robustus] is found in an appreciable nr of pongids, particularly clearly in some chimps”. Eckhardt 1987
• “P.paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5]; they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions ... even in cranial & facial features”. Zihlman cs 1978
• “A.africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan troglodytes, is markedly prognathous or hyper-prognathous”". Ferguson 1989
• In Taung, “I see nothing in the orbits, nasal bones, and canine teeth definitely nearer to the human condition than the corresponding parts of the skull of a modern young chimp”. Woodward 1925
• “The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimp more closely than it resembles L338y-6”, a juvenile boisei. Rak & Howell 1978
• “In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung & Australopithecus in general had maturation periods similar to the extant chimp”. Bromage 1985
• “I estimate an adult capacity for Taung ranging from 404-420 cm2, with a mean of 412 cm2. Application of Passingham’s curve for brain development in Pan is preferable to that for humans: (a) brain size of early hominids approximates that of chimps, (b) the curves for brain volume rel.to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids & australopiths, leading Hofman to conclude: ‘as with pongids, the australopiths probably differed only in size, not in design’”. Falk 1987
• In Taung, “pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma & hard palate. This is intriguing: an intra-palatal extension of the maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimps & robust australopiths among higher primates”. Bromage & Dean 1985
• “That the fossil ape Australopith.[Taung] ‘is distinguished from all living apes by the... unfused nasal bones…’ as claimed by Dart (1940), cannot be maintained in view of the very considerable nr of cases of separate nasal bones among orangs & chimps of ages corresponding to Australopithecus”. Schultz 1941

IOW, it's completely obvious (confirmed in my 1996 paper, and by all descriptions after 1994):
afarensis-->boisei = Gorilla // africanus-->robustus = Pan.

I didn't mention Ardipithecus (but see my 2022 book), but somebody (Pandora?) believed the JHE paper below contradicted that afar.-boisei could have been a closer relative of Gorilla than of HP, and that afr.-robustus could have closer to Pan than to Homo... ?? :-DDD
IMO most papers that use the term "hominin" are biased toard thinking that apiths are human ancestors. Nonsense, of course: apiths were simply fossil relatives of Gorilla or Pan: Pliocene Homo was in S-Asia, cf. retroviral DNA.
"Expanded character sampling underscores phylogenetic stability of Ardipithecus ramidus as a basal hominin"
doi org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
Phylogen.relationships among hominins(?? --mv) provide a necessary framework for assessing their evolution.
Reconstructing these relationships hinges on the strength of the character data analyzed.
The phylogenetic position of Ar.ramidus is critical to understanding early hominin(?? --mv) evolution,
many accept that Ar.ramidus is most likely the sister-taxon to all later hominins, others have argued it was ancestral(sic! --mv) to Pan.
Strait & Grine (2004) suggested the former,
but available evidence permitted only 26 % of characters in their matrix to be assessed for Ardip.ramidus.
Fossils described subsequently by Suwa cs (2009) have enabled the nr of characters that can be coded for Ar.ramidus to be expanded to 78 % of the matrix.
Here we incorporate these new character data, to evaluate their impact on the phylogenetic relationships of Ar.ramidus,
we have further revised the Strait & Grine (2004) matrix as necessitated by additions to the hypodigms of other fossil taxa.
This updated matrix was analyzed, using parsimony & Bayesian techniques in a sequence of 4 iterative steps to independently evaluate the impact of matrix & expanded character revisions on tree topology.
Despite the new data & matrix revisions, tree topology has remained remarkably stable.
The addition of new cranio-dental material has served to markedly strengthen the support for the placement of Ar.ramidus as being derived(sic --mv) vs Sahelanthropus, and as the sister taxon of all later hominins(?? --mv).
These findings support the phylogenetic hypothesis originally proposed by White cs (1994).
This updated matrix provides a basis for the assessment of additional extinct spp.