The article asserts that this species is separate from h. foresiensis, but I'm curious how closely they might have been related. Sure, they are separated by geography and 50,000 years, but it seems more plausible that there were 3 rather distinct branches of humans wandering around at the time than 4. And there is a cladistic analysis suggesting that h. floresiensis diverged more recently than h. habilis which would make the timeline for the one fit the genetic evidence for this new species.