Ah, the tune changes! Did someone Freepmail you some more creationist evidence-dismissing apocrypha? Why are you all conspiring to make me look bad? </AndrewC_mode>
If you don't like the evidence, discredit it. The skull's in bad shape in a lot of ways, yes. It could use a lower jaw, for instance. It has an odd circular hole that has been the cause of some speculation. I believe some of the goofy-theory lovers have tried to call it an ancient bullet hole. It all sounds like "Lucy's knee was found a mile away and sixteen sediment layers up from her head."
As far as having been reclassified from its own species, you can still see it cited as H. heidelbergensis, another minor intermediate species term falling into disuse. A very few echo your usage of H. erectus, but it's a very late erectus if so. At any rate, it is typical of you to want too much for arbitrary, beauty-contest classifications.
And what are all those skulls you lawyer away as "unclassified," meaning I assume that they show in-between characteristics? (None are actually unclassified. If anything, they are over-classified.) Why couldn't such be used as evidence of evolution?
Hi, No-Kin. I see you resort to typical Ad Hominem.