The Guardian&#x27;s coverage of this contains a fair amount of scepticism:<p><i>Christoph Zollikofer, an anthropologist at the University of Zurich, said that many of the bone characteristics used to claim the creature as a new species are seen in more primitive animals, and by definition cannot be used to define a new species.</i><p><i>“The few ‘unique’ features that potentially define the new species need further scrutiny, as they may represent individual variation, or variation at the population level,” he said.</i><p><i>Tim White, a paleoanthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley, goes further. “From what is presented here, they belong to a primitive Homo erectus, a species named in the 1800s.”</i><p>--<p><i>“Intentional disposal of rotting corpses by fellow pinheads makes a nice headline, but seems like a stretch to me,” said Jungers. Zollikofer agrees. “The ‘new species’ and ‘dump-the-dead’ claims are clearly for the media. None of them is substantiated by the data presented in the publications,” he said. Hawks is open to other explanations, but said that disposal made sense. “The evidence really tends to exclude the idea that they entered the chamber one at a time, alive, over some time, because we have infants, small children, and very old adults who would almost certainly not have managed to get into this chamber without being deposited there.”</i><p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;science&#x2F;2015&#x2F;sep&#x2F;10&#x2F;new-species-of-ancient-human-discovered-claim-scientists" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;science&#x2F;2015&#x2F;sep&#x2F;10&#x2F;new-species-o...</a>