The most significant implication of removing the atypical canines from Sivapithecus is that there is no longer any clear morphological justification for recognizing S. indicus and S. sivalensis as time-successive species. Accepting the stated provenance of the two Chinji canines with a typical Sivapithecus morphology, GSI D. 238 and BMNH M34438, there are no discernable differences in hominoid upper-canine size or morphology between older and younger levels in the Siwaliks. While there are suggestions of other differences in the Sivapithecus samples from the Chinji and Dhok Pathan Formations, for example in tooth proportions (Kelley 1988), that might indicate the presence of different species, these have not been systematically assessed. Nevertheless, Begun and Güleç (1998) have suggested that the hominoids from the Chinji Formation might not even be attributable to Sivapithecus. This argument is based on perceived differences between the only known palatal specimen from the Chinji Formation, GSP 16075, and the palates from the Dhok Pathan Formation, particularly GSP 15000. However, GSP 16075 is incomplete and damaged, and it is not clear that the noted differences between it and GSP 15000, even if all accurately portrayed, reflect anything more than normal intraspecific variation.
The characterizations of canine sexual dimorphism in Sivapithecus, both morphological and metric, put forward by Greenfield (1979) and Kay (1982) must also be reconsidered. Unfortunately, whereas several Sivapithecus male upper canines have been recovered (Pilbeam et al. 1980), there is still only one female canine (actually an antimere pair), GSI D299/300 (Kelley 1995b). The degree of canine height dimorphism in Sivapithecus based on these specimens is relatively high and on a par with that found in gorillas or orangutans (Kelley 1995a, 1995b), in contrast to the claim for relatively low canine dimorphism in Sivapithecus species made by Kay (1982) based on overall metric variation in the canine sample. Thus, the level of canine dimorphism in Sivapithecus appears to be similar to that of all other large-bodied Miocene hominoids for which measures of canine dimorphism can be calculated (Kelley 1995b; Kelley and Alpagut 1999).