The absence of African retrovirus in human DNA proves that we were not in Africa during the Pliocene (e.g. Yohn 2005 PLoS):
Pliocene Homo lived in S.Asia (e.g. RV data),

Plio-Pleist. australopiths were relatives of Gorilla or Pan, not of Homo,
they evolved in parallel //
-- E.Africa afarensis->boisei = Gorilla,
-- S.Africa africanus->robustus = Pan:

Quotations on gorilla-like features in E-African australopith crania:
• “Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”. Ryan & Johanson 1989.
• The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens “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 A.afarensis, are: very small cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria; nasals extended far above the frontomaxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”. Walker cs 1986.
• As for the maximum parietal breadth and the biauriculare in O.H.5 and KNM-ER 406 “the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean: both the pongids and the robust australopithecines 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 A.boisei “lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history”. Leakey & Walker 1988.
• A.boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”. Beynon & Wood 1986.

Chimp-like features in S-African australopith crania:
• “Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Australopithecus robustus teeth and they fall into the fruit-eating category ... their teeth patterns look like those of chimpanzees ... when be looked at some Homo erectus teeth, he found that the pattern changed”. Leakey 1981:74-75.
• “The ‘keystone’ nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic of Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids, particularly clearly in some chimpanzees”. Eckhardt 1987.
• “P.paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5]; they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and.... even in cranial and facial features”. Zihlman cs 1978.
• “A.africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan troglodytes, is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous”". 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 chimpanzee”. Woodward 1925.
• “The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimpanzee more closely than it resembles L338y-6”, a juvenile A.boisei. Rak & Howell 1978.
• “In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung and Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to those of the extant chimpanzee”. 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 because (a) brain size of early hominids approximates that of chimpanzees, and (b) the curves for brain volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids and australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude that ‘as with pongids, the australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in design’”. Falk 1987.
• In Taung, “pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma and hard palate. This is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimpanzees and robust australopithecines among higher primates”. Bromage & Dean 1985.
• “That the fossil ape Australopithecus [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 number of cases of separate nasal bones among orang-utans and chimpanzees of ages corresponding to that of Australopithecus”. Schultz 1941.

- Pliocene Homo followed S.Asian coasts (e.g. early-Pleist. H.erectus Java Mojokerto):
- australopiths are relatives of Gorilla or Pan, not Homo!!:
- E.Afr.apiths (Lucy etc.) belong to the genus Gorilla,
- S.Afr.apiths (Taung etc.) are fossil relatives of Pan:

The quotations I provided (see below) come from my Hum.Evol.papers (1990s),
but they're fully confirmed by all more recent publications, e.g. 2023:

"Knuckle-walking in Sahelanthropus?
Locomotor inferences from the ulnae of fossil hominins and other hominoids"
Marc R Meyer cs 2023 JHE 179,103355 doi org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103355
The ulna supports & transmits forces during movement: its morphology can signal aspects of funct.adaptation.
Do some hominins (like extant apes) habitually recruit the fore-limb in locomotion?
We separate the ulna shaft & ulna proximal complex for independent shape analyses (elliptical Fourier methods),
we examine the rel.influence of locomotion, taxonomy & body-mass on ulna contours:
in 22 H.sapiens, 33 extant (5 spp) & 2 Miocene apes (Hispanop., Danuvius), 17 fossil hominin spp: Sahelanthr., Ardip., Australop., Paranthropus, early Homo:
- ulna proximal complex contours correlate with body-mass, but not locomotor patterns,
- ulna shafts significantly correlate with locomotion.
Afr.apes' ulna shafts are more robust & curved >Asian apes (vs other terrestrial mammals incl. other primates), curving ventrally rather than dorsally,
this distinctive curvature (absent in orangs & hylobatids) = a function of powerful flexors engaged in wrist & hand stabilization during KWing? not for climbing or suspension?
OH-36 (Par.boisei?) & TM-266 (Sah.tchadensis?), vs other hominins, fall within the KWing morpho-space (knuckle-walking: fore-limb morphology cons.x terrestrial locomotion).
Discr.funct.analysis classifies OH-36 & TM-266 with Pan & Gorilla, with high posterior probability.
Along with its associated femur, the TM-266 ulna shaft contours & its deep, keeled trochlear notch comprise a suite of traits signaling Afr.ape-like quadrupedalism.(KWing --mv)
Implications for the phylogenetic position & hominin status of tchadensis remain equivocal,
but this study supports the growing body of evidence: tchadensis was not an obligate biped, but represents a late-Miocene hominid with KWing adaptations.

> The absence of African retrovirus in human DNA proves that we were not in Africa during the Pliocene (e.g. Yohn 2005 PLoS):
> Pliocene Homo lived in S.Asia (e.g. RV data),
> Plio-Pleist. australopiths were relatives of Gorilla or Pan, not of Homo,
> they evolved in parallel //
apparently from late-Pliocene "gracile" to early-Pleistocene "robust":
> -- E.Africa afarensis->boisei = Gorilla //
> -- S.Africa africanus->robustus = Pan:

> Quotations on gorilla-like features in E-African australopith crania:
> • “Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”. Ryan & Johanson 1989.
> • The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens “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 A.afarensis, are: very small cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria; nasals extended far above the frontomaxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”. Walker cs 1986.
> • As for the maximum parietal breadth and the biauriculare in O.H..5 and KNM-ER 406 “the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean: both the pongids and the robust australopithecines 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 A.boisei “lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history”. Leakey & Walker 1988.
> • A.boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”. Beynon & Wood 1986.

> Chimp-like features in S-African australopith crania:
> • “Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Australopithecus robustus teeth and they fall into the fruit-eating category ... their teeth patterns look like those of chimpanzees ... when be looked at some Homo erectus teeth, he found that the pattern changed”. Leakey 1981:74-75.
> • “The ‘keystone’ nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic of Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids, particularly clearly in some chimpanzees”. Eckhardt 1987.
> • “P.paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5]; they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and.... even in cranial and facial features”. Zihlman cs 1978.
> • “A.africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan troglodytes, is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous”".. 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 chimpanzee”. Woodward 1925..
> • “The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimpanzee more closely than it resembles L338y-6”, a juvenile A.boisei. Rak & Howell 1978.
> • “In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung and Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to those of the extant chimpanzee”. 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 because (a) brain size of early hominids approximates that of chimpanzees, and (b) the curves for brain volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids and australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude that ‘as with pongids, the australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in design’”. Falk 1987.
> • In Taung, “pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma and hard palate. This is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimpanzees and robust australopithecines among higher primates”. Bromage & Dean 1985.
> • “That the fossil ape Australopithecus [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 number of cases of separate nasal bones among orang-utans and chimpanzees of ages corresponding to that of Australopithecus”. Schultz 1941.