[VadeRetro]

The differences between Australopithecus to Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens are quite large...enough (as shown by the names) to qualify as each an entirely different species.

Actually, the intergrading of the hominid series tends to make a mockery of the sort of bin-lawyering you attempt. The later australopithecines are considerably advanced over the early ones and there is considerable dispute over the dividing line between them and the earliest of genus Homo, the habilines.

There are some disputed species, (e.g. rudolphensis) between the later habilines and erectus/ergaster, ergaster itself being a disputed classification. Some of the later skulls (Atapuerca in Spain particularly) are thought to show "incipient" neanderthal characters, etc.

What you're doing is just "bin-lawyering." Everything taxonomically lumped in Bin A is "An 'A,' just an 'A!'"

For a fine deconstruction of such obscurantist tactics, click here.

[Virginia-American]

Excellent article "Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record" that you linked to.

Thanks!