Should Homo Habilis and Homo Rudolfensis be put into a new genus because they are too ape like to be considered homo, yet are too smart and advanced to be considered Australopithecus?

This is a great debate, alex. The only problem is that there is no cranial evidence with rudolfensis as there is with habilis. If the Leakeys couldn't determine this with more research and more digging, then someone else will have to discover rudolfensis with more cranial evidence but seeing as the remains are so astoundingly old, I don't think that is going to happen.

Leakey lumped him in with the genes 'homo' because he couldn't determine brain size.

Tick