Is Homo naledi a new species of humans?
I'm not any kind of expert, but anybody can look at the original
research paper,, and see what was identified as human-like and what
was identified as not like them. I go into the main details on my
blog, Fundamentalist Science.
The significant features tied to our genus are the general shape
of the head, the small teeth, and features of the hands and feet.
They mention size, too, but humans come in a wide range of sizes
and so do apes.
Now, on the other side is "a more primitive or australopith-like
trunk, ... shoulder," and "pelvis and proximal femur." Just those
alone seem to argue strongly against giving the nod to placing the
critter on the human side of the equation. Everything at its core
is like an ausralopithecine "ape" or non-human. What seems to put
the weight on the side of "non-human" to me is the tiny size of the
brain. Even the fossils assigned to our genus, such as H. erectus,
have distinctly larger brains.
Maybe there's some technical reason for assigning naledi to our
genus, but I don't think something that is so much like an ape with
human-like hands and feet makes the cut.