The phylogeny began with Proconsul heseloni as the common ancestor of Sivapithecus indicus, Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus Africanus. The reasoning for this comes from the approximate age of Proconsul Heseloni of 23 million years ago. This places Sivapithecus indicus approximately 15 million years later, suggesting that Sivapithecus indicus evolved directly from Proconsul heseloni. From Proconsul heseloni, it was decided that three species evolved from it. These species included AA afarensis, A. africanus, and Sivapithecus indicus. Sivapithecus indicus branched off from the first human evolutionary line because the characteristics of the dentition and skull features differed from those of A. afarensis and A. africanus (see Fig.1 Dentition of early humans, Fig.2 Skull features of early humans human beings). P. Boisei was placed as a direct descendant of Sivapithecus indicus and not of the Proconsul Heseloni. The justification for this was the data obtained through comparison of skulls. P. Boisei has a similar brain size to body weight ratio as Sivapithecus indicus, indicating that although they were not identical, the brain to body weight ratio may have increased through evolution over millions of years. Further reasoning for this placement is that the characteristics of P. Boisei were similar to those of the modern chimpanzee, which is known to be a descendant of Sivapithecus indicus. As time passed on the phylogeny, Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus afarensis were considered direct descendants of Proconsul Heseloni. However, it was decided that A. afarensis branched off and became extinct without any further descendants. Reasons for the branching of A. africanus and A. afarensis include data taken from the brain relative to the center of the paper......those obtained on skull measurements were only on H. ergaster, H. erectus and H. sapiens . The evidence that ultimately decided species placement were snout angles, brain, and body weight. The reason for choosing this evidence as the primary source was because this data was the only one that covered the entire phylogeny. The phylogeny presented above is an interpretation of the data collected from the activity and is subject to interpretation of the information. There are multiple phylogenies circulating in the scientific community. Possible reasons why there may be multiple phylogenies circulating in the scientific community as there may be anthropologists rating different pieces of evidence higher than others, for example dentition on skull structure, possibly allowing for different interpretations of the data, increasing differentiation of phylogenies