ABSTRACT
Inadequate analysis and rash overrating of localized morphological differences have produced an amazing amount of quite unnecessary, new taxonomic names, unjustified classifications and unconvincing evolutionary speculations for higher primates. The degrees of variability, of sex differentiation and of the intensity and speed of age changes can differ very widely among primates and certainly need not at all resemble the conditions in man, as is tacitly assumed by many anthropologists. Many similar changes in the relative ages of localized developmental processes have become known and, if marked and stabilized, do represent good taxonomic characters. General descriptions of the taxonomic characters of the higher primates in particular usually dwell far more on the skull, teeth and brain than on the neck, trunk and limbs and limit themselves to conditions in adults. Paleoanthropologists with limited experience in primatology usually take it for granted that large and robust specimens must be male and the smaller and delicate variations female.
