Ditto. The BBC writer could have specified "new extint human-like species discovered", or "Fossils of new human-like species discovered".

You gotta wait for that till drones and thermal cameras are an order of magnitude cheape and thus more ubiquitous.

Best evidence for the existence of a separate species is recent (late 1800's) genetic admixture to an Abhkazian family.

Sadly, however, the paleogeneticist (retired Oxford prof. Bryan Sykes) who has the samples has so far not yet released any further information on the samples, except that the admixture cannot be matched to any known ethnic.

You can imagine my disappointment when they turned out to be 3 million years old. I don't consider that "new".

Perhaps "Previous undiscovered hominid discovered"? But that sounds a bit tautological. "Hominid discovered"? But we had hominids already.

Exactly. I clicked, incredulous and excited at what news this is! While still fascinating, I'll admit I was just a tiny bit disappointed.

Ditto. I do blame it a bit on not being fully awake yet.

When I read that title, I automatically assumed it to be an extinct human-like race, filling in another gap of human evolution history. Maybe whoever wrote that title thought the same, and failed to realize that ordinary people would construe it otherwise.

Yes. In youtube comments.

Presumably they're close enough to us that if we can recover their DNA we could use gene editing technology to bring them back to life.