Bones from 4 Danuvius guggenmosi individuals. Note the diminutive sizes compared with living apes (Credit: Christoph Jäckle)
Remains of a Miocene ape from Bavaria reveal clear signs that it was bipedal and therefore a possible ancestor of hominins. Details are at Earth-logs
Surely the word is homonid. Why do you Americans have to confuse things !!??
Sorry, Lynda, ‘homonid’ is a rare typographic error for ‘hominid’. To learn the difference between ‘hominin’ and ‘hominid’, which you brought up in a previous comment, see https://australianmuseum.net.au/learn/science/human-evolution/hominid-and-hominin-whats-the-difference/ All English speaking palaeoanthropologists make that distinction.
FYI, I am not an American. My usage of ‘palaeo-‘, rather than the US ‘paleo-‘, is a dead giveaway! I also prefer ‘sulphur’ to ‘sulfur’, but that is contrary to the democratic decision of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) some while back, and is enshrined in the modern Periodic Table
Best wishes
Steve Drury
Best wishes
Steve Drury