Read it- Experts STILL REJECT the classification of ER 3733 as some transiotional ‘ergaster’ model- Ignoring that doesn’t do away with that fact
If you look at my original post of this specimen you will note its classification includes three names:
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo erectus ergaster
This is because there is disagreement over the exact classification of the specimen.
Rightmire suggests that this specimen should be classified as an early Homo erectus. Others disagree and place it as a separate species.
Neither of these classifications change that it has a position ancestral or closely ancestral to the bulk of Homo erectus. The disagreement is on exactly where to place it.
You have read Rightmire's opinion. Here is another:
By 1.9 million years ago, another lineage of the genus Homo emerged in Africa. This species was Homo ergaster. Traditionally, scientists have referred to this species as Homo erectus and linked this species name with a proliferation of populations across Africa, Europe, and Asia. Yet, since the first discoveries of Homo erectus, it had been noted that there were differences between the early populations of "Homo erectus" in Africa, and the later populations of Europe, Africa and Asia. Many researchers now separate the two into distinct species Homo ergaster for early African "Homo erectus", and Homo erectus for later populations mainly in Asia. Since modern humans share the same differences as H. ergaster with the Asian H. erectus, scientist consider H. ergaster as the probable ancestor of later Homo populations. Source
Some consider H. ergaster as a strictly African erectus species, while the majority of H. erectus is seen as primarily Asian; in this view modern humans are descended from H. ergaster in Africa.
None of this disqualifies as a transitional. In fact, the more disagreement over where a specimen should be classified the more likely it is a transitional.
No more tutorials tonight; I've other things to do.