From Newsgroup: sci.anthropology.paleo


https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/human-evolution/homo-habilis-is-the-earliest-named-human-but-is-it-even-human

-
[NOTE: Both gibbons & H habilis share many unique traits (unlike any other extant hominoid): have long arms and long legs, are striding bipeds, have large brain per body weight and torso size, have long achilles tendon, have long back, have similar eyes, tend towards monogamy, sing duets, do not make individual arboreal loud long calls, have no laryngeal airsacs, and never construct arboreal bowl nests. DD]
-

Homo habilis is the earliest named human. But is it even human?
By Colin Barras published 11 hours ago

Between 2 million and 3 million years ago, humans appeared in Africa rCo but identifying them in the fossil record is turning out to be surprisingly difficult.


For 60 years, the earliest known human species has also been one of the most mysterious. Homo habilis was added to our family tree in 1964. But it's long been unclear exactly what the ancient species, which lived between about 2.4 million and 1.65 million years ago, looked like. That's because, until recently, only three very incomplete fossilized skeletons had been unearthed.

Then in January, researchers described a fourth, more complete skeleton rCo and it revealed that H. habilis had an anatomy very unlike our own. The discovery has some researchers asking a big question: Is the earliest known human ancestor not human after all?
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.anthropology.paleo

DDeden wrote:

https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/human-evolution/homo-habilis-is-the-earliest-named-human-but-is-it-even-human

Homo habilis is the earliest named human. But is it even human?
By Colin Barras published 11 hours ago

Thanks for this, had read mention of it but didn't pursue
it (busy with other things)

Better commentary here (as opposed to the popular press)

https://www.science.org/content/article/earliest-homo-species-did-not-look-human-partial-skeleton-shows

The earliest Homo species did not look human, partial
skeleton shows

Homo habilis, 2 million years old, was known mainly
from teeth and jaw bones
13 Jan 2026

...
Scientists used to think H. habilis was the direct
ancestor of H. erectus, a long-legged human ancestor
that was the first to evolve a much larger brain
1.6 million years or so ago. But recent discoveries
suggest H. habilis shared the Rift Valley with other
hominins that also made stone tools, and that
toolmaking started 3.3 million years ago, which
predates the emergence of our genus Homo. Furthermore,
H. erectus appeared about 2 million years ago, well
before H. habilis disappeared about 1.4 million years
ago.
...
Overall, the new skeletonrCOs proportions suggest the
bigger, long-legged human body shape arose in H.
erectus. It also hints that even as H. habilis was
evolving a more modern skull and teeth, its body
didnrCOt change as much. ThatrCOs further evidence that
H. habilis didnrCOt evolve into H. erectus, says
paleoanthropologist Carrie Mongle of Stony Brook,
who is a co-author of the new study. Their
dramatically different bodies rCLmean we either had
extremely rapid evolution to a more modern H. erectus
body, or that H. habilis is not a good candidate for
the direct ancestor of H. erectus.rCY
...


Another good commentary here (by Ian Tattersall!)

https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.70145
An identity for the inscrutable Homo habilis


The (very technical) paper is here. They do conclude
that habilias is in the Homo clade.

https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.70100
New partial skeleton of Homo habilis from the upper
Burgi Member, Koobi Fora Formation, Ileret, Kenya

"In sum, insofar as they are known, the H. habilis
partial skeletons present a picture of postcranial
anatomy that tends to differ from that of other
members of our genus (with the caveat that the
postcranial skeleton of H. rudolfensis is currently
unknown). This seems to be particularly evident with
reference to body proportions and the possible use of
the upper limb. Such differences were a major
consideration in Wood and Collard's (1999) suggestion
that H. habilis might be more comfortably accommodated
in the genus Australopithecus."

"Of course, the preponderance of craniodental
synapomorphies that specimens of H. habilis share
with other members of the genus Homo clearly
identifies this species as a member of the Homo
clade (e.g., Mongle et al., 2023), even if most of
its postcranial characteristics speak to a generally
more primitive australopith grade of organization
(the KNM-ER 64061 ischium appears to be a notable
exception to this pattern). Moreover, the supposedly
problematic ~200,000rCeyears thought to separate
H. habilis from H. erectus in the 1980s is no longer
relevant. The KNM-ER 42703 maxilla of H. habilis from
the Okote Member of the Koobi Fora Formation is dated
to 1.44rCeMa (Spoor et al., 2007), while the KNM-ER 2598
H. erectus occipital (Wood, 1991) from the underlying
upper Burgi Member has a confirmed age of >1.885rCeMa
(Feibel et al., 1989; Hammond et al., 2021). Thus,
H. erectus actually appears some 450,000rCeyears before
H. habilis disappears from the fossil record."



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.anthropology.paleo


Primum Sapienti <invalide@invalid.invalid> posted:

DDeden wrote:

https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/human-evolution/homo-habilis-is-the-earliest-named-human-but-is-it-even-human

Homo habilis is the earliest named human. But is it even human?
By Colin Barras published 11 hours ago

Thanks for this, had read mention of it but didn't pursue
it (busy with other things)

Better commentary here (as opposed to the popular press)

https://www.science.org/content/article/earliest-homo-species-did-not-look-human-partial-skeleton-shows

The earliest Homo species did not look human, partial
skeleton shows

Of course H habilis did not look like H sapiens. H georgicus has traits of both H habilis and H erectus.
Your articles imply that since H habilis was alive after the oldest erectines that erectines couldn't have descended from H habilis, which is phony Creationist type of logic, like saying that human ancestors couldn't have been .
monkeys or apes because are still alive.

Homo habilis, 2 million years old, was known mainly
from teeth and jaw bones
13 Jan 2026

...
Scientists used to think H. habilis was the direct
ancestor of H. erectus, a long-legged human ancestor
that was the first to evolve a much larger brain
1.6 million years or so ago. But recent discoveries
suggest H. habilis shared the Rift Valley with other
hominins that also made stone tools, and that
toolmaking started 3.3 million years ago, which
predates the emergence of our genus Homo. Furthermore,
H. erectus appeared about 2 million years ago, well
before H. habilis disappeared about 1.4 million years
ago.
...
Overall, the new skeletonrCOs proportions suggest the
bigger, long-legged human body shape arose in H.
erectus. It also hints that even as H. habilis was
evolving a more modern skull and teeth, its body
didnrCOt change as much. ThatrCOs further evidence that
H. habilis didnrCOt evolve into H. erectus, says
paleoanthropologist Carrie Mongle of Stony Brook,
who is a co-author of the new study. Their
dramatically different bodies rCLmean we either had
extremely rapid evolution to a more modern H. erectus
body, or that H. habilis is not a good candidate for
the direct ancestor of H. erectus.rCY
...

Another good commentary here (by Ian Tattersall!)

https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.70145
An identity for the inscrutable Homo habilis

The (very technical) paper is here. They do conclude
that habilias is in the Homo clade.

https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.70100
New partial skeleton of Homo habilis from the upper
Burgi Member, Koobi Fora Formation, Ileret, Kenya

"In sum, insofar as they are known, the H. habilis
partial skeletons present a picture of postcranial
anatomy that tends to differ from that of other
members of our genus (with the caveat that the
postcranial skeleton of H. rudolfensis is currently
unknown). This seems to be particularly evident with
reference to body proportions and the possible use of
the upper limb. Such differences were a major
consideration in Wood and Collard's (1999) suggestion
that H. habilis might be more comfortably accommodated
in the genus Australopithecus."

"Of course, the preponderance of craniodental
synapomorphies that specimens of H. habilis share
with other members of the genus Homo clearly
identifies this species as a member of the Homo
clade (e.g., Mongle et al., 2023), even if most of
its postcranial characteristics speak to a generally
more primitive australopith grade of organization
(the KNM-ER 64061 ischium appears to be a notable
exception to this pattern). Moreover, the supposedly
problematic ~200,000rCeyears thought to separate
H. habilis from H. erectus in the 1980s is no longer
relevant. The KNM-ER 42703 maxilla of H. habilis from
the Okote Member of the Koobi Fora Formation is dated
to 1.44rCeMa (Spoor et al., 2007), while the KNM-ER 2598
H. erectus occipital (Wood, 1991) from the underlying
upper Burgi Member has a confirmed age of >1.885rCeMa
(Feibel et al., 1989; Hammond et al., 2021). Thus,
H. erectus actually appears some 450,000rCeyears before
H. habilis disappears from the fossil record."

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2