Afarensis is a 3.5-2.8 million year old hominin from the Kada Hadar member of the Hadar formation in the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. He is approximately 41 inches tall, weighs approximately 60 pounds and has a cranial capacity of a whopping 410 cc (approximately). Afarensis is currently considered to be transitional between apes and humans and displays some traits of both. Since he spends a lot of time on the couch watching monster movies, some observers question whether he is an obligate biped (although no one has observed him climbing a tree). He also has a blog called 
Added 3/28/06: National Geographic has a story on the skull as well...
MSNBC also has a story on the new find in Ethiopia. Including a picture.
One of the more interesting things about the MSNBC story is that it includes a poll thats asks:
I think there's sufficient evidence tracing the evolutionary family tree of primates and humans. (67%)
I don't accept any evidence that humans arose through evolution. (22%)
or
Neither of the above. (Whatever that means) (11%)
79393 people (as of when I wrote this post) responded and the percentages are above next to each question. Although, this is a non-scientific poll the results are encouraging...
You can find a press release on the fossil here. One of the important aspects of the find is the dating:
Most of the sediments containing the cranium are sands and silts, not datable by standard geologic methods. However, the region contains many active and recently active volcanoes that erupted periodically, blanketing the local landscape with thin, gray-colored layers of volcanic ash. These volcanic ash layers hold the key to dating the Gawis cranium and associated stone tools. Some ash layers in the Gona project area can be directly dated by the 40Ar/39Ar method, and others, by virtue of their distinctive chemical composition, can be matched to correlative dated layers outside the Gona area providing the opportunity to make this one of the best-dated human ancestors notes Jay Quade, Gona project geologist.
About the skull and the site where it was found:
The specimen includes the braincase, upper face, and upper jaw. Several surface exposed stone tools were found at the hominid site. Additional contemporary stone tools excavated from the same stratigraphic level near the hominid site include Late Acheulian artifacts. A diversity of fossil animals including pigs (two types), zebras, elephants, multiple types of antelopes, small carnivores including cats, and numerous rodents were found at the same stratigraphic level as the Gawis cranium. [Gawis is the name of a nearby river - afarensis]More about the skull:
The Gawis cranium comes from a time of transition to modern humans from African Homo erectus that is poorly known. The fossil record from Africa for this period is sparse and most of the specimens are poorly dated. The few fossil crania that are known from the Middle Pleistocene of Africa present a narrow view of the range of potential anatomical variation during this period. The Gawis cranium provides us with the opportunity to look at the face of one of our ancestors. Additionally, this fossil links us with the past by showing a face that is recognizably different and more primitive than ours. The face and cranium of this remarkable fossil are recognizably different from that of modern humans but it bearsunmistakable anatomical evidence that it belongs to our ancestry.
Comments
afarensis writes:
Pehaps they think humans did evolve, but not from another primate?
Posted by: Dave S. | March 26, 2006 8:43 AM
I dunno. This skull looks more like an H.erectus to me than anything else. OTOH, the browridges seem thinner than on the usual H.erectus. I think the only thing to do is wait till some paper is published somewhere.
Posted by: lagarvelho | March 26, 2006 3:26 PM
Kind of looks like Homo erectus to me too, but that's based on just the photo above. I'm eagerly looking forward to publication of the material...
Posted by: afarensis | March 26, 2006 3:38 PM
Perhaps its "I accept the possibility that humans may have evolved, and that some evidence may support it but I don't consider the evidence to be sufficient"?
Of course, some people vote "neither" just to be contrarian. I'm sure there's a statistical reason why having a "none of the above" for two seemingly opposite yet inclusive answers is better than not, although in this case the two questions aren't exactly polar opposites.
Its a casual website survey in any instance, hardly worth using in a study.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | March 26, 2006 6:01 PM
Well, if the questions were as you report, I would have to count myself among the 11%. I have not a shadow of doubt that H. sapiens evolved, but... "sufficient evidence tracing the evolutionary family tree"? Admittedly I'm no specialist, but is there sufficient evidence to ink in the taxonomic relationships of every named species of Australopithecus, and determine which are valid taxa? To draw a cladogram of H. rudolfensis, habilis and ergaster with absolute confidence? To resolve the debate for or against the resuscitation of H. Helmei? It's a big ask.
Posted by: chris | March 27, 2006 11:48 AM
The poll is useless in any case b/c it is a self selected sample. I think you can safely assume that people reading this blog are already pre disposed to believe that humans evolved. This is not cause for hope about the general state of education or information level of the population of this country.
Posted by: catherine glickman | March 27, 2006 12:10 PM
Have anyone seen another picture of the fossil? - I definitely see here two parts belonged to different skulls and they no means don't match each other (even potentially)! - This 'piltdown' looks so obvious that I can't dispose of the impression. Or they wanna say: don't trust your eyes?
Posted by: nature-wonder | March 29, 2006 4:33 PM
You can tell that based on what specific morphological characteristics? What does Piltdown have to do with anything?
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | March 29, 2006 5:49 PM
Just look over there. The back side is really wider. Significantly. They don't match. I guess they just took fossils from the same area and concluded these belonged to the same lineage. But it's not evident. - And I desperately would like to see other pictures if any.
Posted by: nature-wonder | March 29, 2006 6:07 PM
That's kind of subjective wouldn't you say? The press release says they were found in the same spot. You probably won't see more photographs till the find is written up in Science or Nature...
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | March 29, 2006 6:17 PM
I know. Unfortunately I draw my conclusions from the only photograph and they can be biased. But what I can see here clearly shows parts of two skulls not one.
That's why I asked about other images. - No doubt you won't miss the paper. It would be interesting to compare impressions..
Posted by: nature-wonder | March 29, 2006 6:50 PM