Eh?? The first lines below the below the family tree are:
That’s why I gave the link. Assuming this is taking into account the most recent fossil finds, it is the answer, period. Since it appears to be used for some courses, it probably is. I will point out that it is what appears in the text astro’s second link leads to, which says “after 16 m.y.a.”. However, since the OP wanted to know
I looked up a paleoanthropologist - one whom I know to be very distinguished, and who researches in a very closely related field. I said:
because I know from associating with anthros (in addition having majored in it) that the paleos don’t differentiate that much between how they view hominoids and hominids, at least in terms of following each other’s research.
Then I suggested the OP check with some of the research institutes affiliated with U of Georgia, as there is a famous colony of chimps in GA. IIRC, U/GA is also responsible for a colony of macaques that is maintained on a (nearby?) island. If there are no anthropologists or zoologists who are up to speed on current theories of the spread of hominoids (the correct term for the apes; human ancestors are hominids), I’ll be very surprised.
I did understand what the OP was asking,
Or at least I thought I did.
… and I very carefully addressed the issue. Not that I’m dissing the info Colibri posted, not in the least. I’ve filed the link (and astro’s), gratefully. YNK when you’ll want this stuff. OTOH, that paper is three years old (and astro’s is four). Not only is Loring Brace likely to know about finds that haven’t even been published yet, but he will also know about papers that have been published in journals that aren’t available except by (highly expensive) subscription.
Incidentally, the worst thing about a textbook is that it is always out of date by the time it’s published. That’s because of the long lead-time needed by publishers. Journals have a somewhat shorter one, but I know from the experience of friends who actively publish research that refereed journal articles must go through the peer review process (allow at least two months, and realistically more like 5 or 6, assuming the jurors are all conscientious about turning them around, and none has questions), then be scheduled into an issue, usually at least four more months. I spent, altogether, 11 years working with faculty in two different large universities, both of which have fairly stringent guidelines on faculty research/publication. In addition to working closely with a researcher in a different field, who continued to research and publish, even though she’d become emerita. I watched the manuscripts go out and the requests for revisions (hate ta tellya how often faculty tear their hair out over revisions) come back. Sometimes a paper will get revised 3 or 4 times, depending on how determined the writer is, and how new/controversial the research field and/or findings may be.
IOW, if the OP asks Prof. Brace nicely, s/he will wind up knowing more than any of us here do about it. Or maybe we can get a report back?