Actually, it was popularly stated for a very time
that Lucy was NOT a human ancestor, so if you're
having difficulty finding cites that say exactly that
then maybe you should be asking for help.
...the problem is on your end.
It has since become popular to claim that Lucy IS
a human ancestor. But that's one of my problems
with paleo anthropology: It's not a real science.
Conclusions shift even though the evidence hasn't,
as in the case of Lucy, while at the same time
conclusions remains steadfast even with radical
changes/additions to the evidence, as in the case
of Naledi.
I do happen to agree that Lucy is in the wrong place
for a direct ancestor. It could be the inland variant of
our ancestor -- the same species or a sub species
thereof -- but I doubt it's an ancestor.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/663948262976487424
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)