Reply to Rak et al. (2021) “The DNH 7 skull of Australopithecus robustus from Drimolen (Main Quarry), South Africa” [J. Hum. Evol. 151 (2021), 102913]

<p dir="ltr">We read with interest <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248423000829?via=ihub#bib5" target="_blank">Rak et al.’s (2021)</a> anatomical description and reconstruction of the 2.04–1.95 Ma (<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248423000829?via=ihub#bib1" target="_blank">Herries et al., 2020</a>) female <i>Paranthropus robustus</i> skull DNH 7 (<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248423000829?via=ihub#bib2" target="_blank">Keyser, 2000</a>) from Drimolen Main Quarry in South Africa. For the most part, we (<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248423000829?via=ihub#bib4" target="_blank">Martin et al., 2021</a>) concur with their assessment of the specimen's morphology (notwithstanding minor points of disagreement). However, we draw attention to their positioning of the specimen's face relative to the neurocranium. As reconstructed by <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248423000829?via=ihub#bib5" target="_blank">Rak et al. (2021</a>: Fig. 17), DNH 7 is the most orthognathic australopith on which they have measured the index of palate protrusion; according to them, only 19% of the length of the palate protrudes anterior to sellion when the cranium is aligned in Frankfort horizontal plane. Concomitantly, the anterior facial profile (i.e., as seen in lateral view) is nearly vertical (<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248423000829?via=ihub#bib5" target="_blank">Rak et al., 2021</a>: Figs. 4 and 5). Here we show that their placement of the face on the neurocranium is incompatible with well-preserved morphology on DNH 7.</p>