The evolutionary relationships of extant great apes and humans have been largely resolved by molecular studies, yet morphology-based phylogenetic analyses continue to provide conflicting results. In order to further investigate this discrepancy we present bootstrap clade support of morphological data based on two quantitative datasets, one dataset consisting of linear measurements of the whole skull from 5 hominoid genera and the second dataset consisting of 3D landmark data from the temporal bone of 5 hominoid genera, including 11 sub-species. Using similar protocols for both datasets, we were able to 1) compare distance-based phylogenetic methods to cladistic parsimony of quantitative data converted into discrete character states, 2) vary outgroup choice to observe its effect on phylogenetic inference, and 3) analyse male and female data separately to observe the effect of sexual dimorphism on phylogenies. Phylogenetic analysis was sensitive to methodological decisions, particularly outgroup selection, where designation of Pongo as an outgroup and removal of Hylobates resulted in greater congruence with the proposed molecular phylogeny. The performance of distance-based methods also justifies their use in phylogenetic analysis of morphological data. It is clear from our analyses that hominoid phylogenetics ought not to be used as an example of conflict between the morphological and molecular, but as an example of how outgroup and methodological choices can affect the outcome of phylogenetic analysis. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.