Alternatively, the upper canine similarities could be the result of convergent evolution with the resemblance in shape to African hominin teeth being a genetic, environmental fluke, which just happened to arise in two different species in different locations.
...
"I think this is much ado about nothing," palaeoanthropologist Bence Viola from the University of Toronto in Canada told National Geographic.
"The second tooth (the molar), which they say clearly comes from the same individual, is absolutely not a hominin, [and] I would say also not a hominoid."
Instead, it's possible the teeth belong to a much more distant group called pliopithecoids something Lutz's team themselves acknowledge in their research.
But we won't know more about that for sure until the team have a chance to analyse the teeth in greater detail, which could tell them about the individual's age, dietary habits, and maybe its place in our ancient ancestors' story (or that of their cousins).
Until then, claims that we have to rewrite the textbooks need to be taken with a grain of salt, because the science on this one hasn't been fully cooked yet.
Fossils are great, sensationalist articles not so much. This may be a distant distant relative of hominoids, at best. ---