"Bergman reminds us that, “Most claimed fossil ape-men finds consist of a few teeth plus pieces of broken skull and other bone fragments” (p. 26).
For instance, ‘Turkana boy’ (usually assigned to Homo erectus) is exceptional in that its skeleton is 40% complete.
The much-hyped australopithecine Lucy is fragmentary, and only 20% complete by skeletal weight (Bergman and Biddle, p. 104). 
The habiline KNM-ER 1470 is notorious for its fragmentary character, leading to ever-changing reconstructions and ensuing interpretations (Peter Line, p. 187).
Homo erectus is difficult to evaluate because of the rarity of postcranial elements, especially those that can unambiguously be linked to the crania (Line, p. 246).
Some of the taxons are each a ‘wastebasket’.
The understanding of extinct primates, and their presumed role in the evolution of humans, is complicated by the fact that some of the names used are, or may be, an amalgamation of skeletal remains of different animals, and even of nonhumans and humans.
This is true, for example, of so-called Australopithecus sediba (Editors, p. 3, Peter Line, p. 134) and Homo habilis (Peter Line, p. 198).
The latter is an admixture of australopithecines, Homo erectus, and the skeletal remains of oddball extinct primates of unclear affinities. In addition, the presence of nearby tools influences the naming of specimens (e.g. habilis), even though the identity of the toolmakers cannot be proved.
The conventional evolutionary scenario is as follows:
The australopithecines were succeeded by Homo habilis, which in turn was succeeded by Homo erectus and then Homo sapiens. Paleoanthropologist Bernard Wood rejects this simple unilineal model of human evolution, basing his conclusion on both fossil morphology and evolutionary dating methods (Peter Line, p. 201)." CMI
