Is it “new”, right? Because as far as I know (or knew), humans were first considered to be “at the other end” of the “apes” group, having split before or right after babboons, and it was based on larger morphological similarity with orangutans and babboons (I believe that in earlier times gorillas were proposed as an alternative of the closest living relative too).

Then somewhat later, but just with molecular data that we were revealed as more closely related with chimps than they are with gorillas. And even then, people like Schwartz will still say that it’s “only genetics” that bring humans and chimps closer to humans than to orangutans, and that (unbearably cranky proposition if you ask me) we’re really more closely related with orangutans.

So, even despite the anti-genetics crankyness, humans are not even more similar anatomically to orangutans, babboons and gorillas “anymore”?

I think I’ve read about non-cranky human-orangutan proximity in things as “new” as Pilbeam’s “the ascent of man”, which is from the 70s. But it was not the supported view, the molecular data was known and accepted already. I think it was mentioned as relevant though, as if the (more common) anatomical similarities between orangutans and babbons and humans suggested that we evolved from brachiators (or “not so good brachiators”, whatever orangutans are), not from knuckle-walkers or fist-walkers. So we’d be retaining an improved secondary bipedality, whereas gorillas and chimpanzees evolved independently as faster “quadrupeds”.

At least from the perspective of someone who is not trained on that, their skeleton looks more similar to ours . The rounded shape of the ribcage, rather than somewhat like a funnel (but oddly enough, gorillas and chimps are more like neanderthal’s in this sense, which I think that maybe would be the best support against it being a plesiomorphy), and the shoulders, most obviously. But I think that even the hips, somewhat.

It’s very surprising to me that only relatively recently that we’d be found to be more similar in “adaptive” traits like these, rather than some subtle details that may be more relevant to infer relatedness.