The article asserts that this species is separate from h. foresiensis, but I'm curious how closely they might have been related. Sure, they are separated by geography and 50,000 years, but it seems more plausible that there were 3 rather distinct branches of humans wandering around at the time than 4. And there is a cladistic analysis suggesting that h. floresiensis diverged more recently than h. habilis which would make the timeline for the one fit the genetic evidence for this new species.

Why does it seem more plausible there were 3 distinct branches than 4 distinct branches? There are many more distinct branches of apes right now.

The more currently unknown branches there were walking around, the more surprising it is that we haven't found more fossils from the ones that are currently unknown.

This might be a stupid question, but has anyone ever considered that a higher intelligence or some other attribute might enable a species to just not end up fossilized so much?

"Hey Grok, don't go there, the gods will kill you."

Hopefully a yeti...

See http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_d... for an anthropologist's take on it.

> IDed

you know you've seen too many ads when you read that and think it's a new apple product. Scary.