However, the validity of this species is debated, with some arguing that "H. habilis" was highly sexually dimorphic like modern non-human apes, with the larger skulls classified as ""H. rudolfensis"" actually representing male "H. habilis". In 1999, Wood and biological anthropologist Mark Collard recommended moving "rudolfensis" and "habilis" to "Australopithecus" based on the similarity of dental adaptations. However, they conceded that dental anatomy is highly variable among hominins and not always reliable when formulating family trees. In 2003, Australian anthropologist David Cameron concluded that the earlier australopithecine "Kenyanthropus platyops" was the ancestor of "rudolfensis", and reclassified it as "K. rudolfensis". He also believed that "Kenyanthropus" was more closely related to "Paranthropus" than "Homo". In 2008, a re-reconstruction of the skull concluded it was incorrectly restored originally, though agreed with the classification as "H. rudolfensis". In 2012, British palaeoanthropologist Meave Leakey described the juvenile partial face KNM-ER 62000 discovered in Koobi Fora, Kenya; noting it shares several similarities to KNM-ER 1470 and is smaller, she assigned it to "H. rudolfensis", and, because prepubescent male and female bones should be indistinguishable, differences between juvenile "H. rudolfensis" and adult "H. habilis" specimens support species distinction. She also concluded that the jawbone KNM-ER 1802, an important specimen often used in classifying other specimens as "H. rudolfensis", actually belongs to a different (possibly undescribed) species, but American palaeoanthropologist Tim D. White believes this to be premature because it is unclear how wide the range of variation is in early hominins. The 2013 discovery of the 1.8 Ma Georgian Dmanisi skulls which exhibit several similarities with early "Homo" have led to suggestions that all contemporary groups of early "Homo" in Africa, including "H. habilis" and "H. rudolfensis", are the same species and should be assigned to "H. erectus". There is still no wide consensus on how "rudolfensis" and "habilis" relate to "H. ergaster" and descendent species. Beyond KNM-ER 1470, there is disagreement on which specimens actually belong in "H. rudolfensis" as it is difficult to assign with accuracy remains that do not preserve the face and jaw.