The article asserts that this species is separate from <i>h. foresiensis</i>, 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 <i>h. floresiensis</i> diverged more recently than <i>h. habilis</i> which would make the timeline for the one fit the genetic evidence for this new species.
Hopefully a yeti...<p>See <a href="http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/denisova-krause-2010.html" rel="nofollow">http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_d...</a> for an anthropologist's take on it.