Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Skulls contain the preponderance of criteria/characteristics used identification of skeletons. This is especially true for primates of both human and non-human lineages. When that shape is altered, reliable identification is less assured. So, too, is it problematic to identify the source of skull pathology, unless it’s severe. Even that can be controversial. One approach has been referred to as phylogenetic bracketing. It is predicated on previous observations of recognized disorders in con-specifics, or closely or even remotely related organisms, not necessarily of the same family or even order.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bruce M. Rothschild (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: