Saturday, May 2, 2026
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
Unexplained Mysteries Support Us
You are viewing: Home > News > Palaeontology > News story
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  
All ▾
Search Submit

Palaeontology

'Little Foot' fossil may belong to totally new species of human ancestor

By T.K. Randall
December 14, 2025 · Comment icon 13 comments
Little Foot and Ron Clarke
Image: Professor Ron Clarke with Skull of Little Foot
Credit: Wits University / Ron Clarke / CC BY-SA 3.0 (adapted)
The remains of a prehistoric skeleton found in a cave in South Africa may be something completely new to science.
First discovered in 1994 in the Sterkfontein cave system, the bones took more than two decades to fully excavate, slowly revealing a member of an ancient species of extinct human ancestor.

Dubbed 'Little Foot' due to the fact that the first bones found were those of the feet, this prehistoric hominin was originally thought to be a member of the species Australopithecus prometheus.

Some doubt about this remained, however, with other experts arguing that it might instead be Australopithecus africanus - a species also previously found in the same cave system.

Now, though, a new study has turned the whole thing on its head by revealing that the specimen may in fact belong to an entirely new species of hominin that is totally unknown to science.
"We think it is a formerly unknown, unsampled species of human ancestor," said study leader Dr Jesse Martin of La Trobe University in Melbourne.

"It doesn't look like Australopithecus prometheus... but it also doesn't look like all of the africanus to come out of Sterkfontein."

"This thing will be part of a lineage of hominins, so it's possible that we have not just a point in our human family tree that we hadn't discovered before, but an entire limb of that tree."

In tribute to the original team who excavated the skeleton, however, the authors of the new study have decided not to reclassify the species themselves but to instead leave that up to its original discoverers.

"It is more appropriate that a new species be named by the research team that has spent more than two decades excavating and analysing the remarkable Little Foot specimen," they wrote.

"We hope they will view our suggestion in this regard as well-intentioned advice."

Source: The Guardian | Comments (13)




Other news and articles
Our latest videos Visit us on YouTube
Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #4 Posted by Freez1 5 months ago
One of these days their going to dig up something that didn’t originate from here.
Comment icon #5 Posted by Ell 5 months ago
Only about one in 80 million tyrannosaurs were found fossilized.
Comment icon #6 Posted by flying squid 5 months ago
After 'Little Foot', the discovery of 'Big Foot' will follow...soon.
Comment icon #7 Posted by flying squid 5 months ago
May be it's an Homo Floresiensis who was visiting his African friends at the time?
Comment icon #8 Posted by Amorlind 5 months ago
Nope its a hobbit...was going to Mordor..everything Tolkien wrote was true ^^
Comment icon #9 Posted by flying squid 4 months ago
Was there any updates of this news?
Comment icon #10 Posted by Jon the frog 1 month ago
We got an anthropologist visiting us in our evolution course when I was at the University. He said that if we take contempory human skelettons from extreme range of present day physionomy and compare them like they do for prehistoric skelettons, they would be separate them in different species even if they are the same...
Comment icon #11 Posted by Grim Reaper 6 1 month ago
That is certainly a possibility, but that's what DNA Analysis used to determine. Without, the use of DNA analysis many mistakes would certainly occur in my opinion.
Comment icon #12 Posted by Abramelin 1 month ago
And that's not happening because: 1. Those contemporary skeletons at the extreme ends of our population are very rare and don't form populations; 2. Genetics.
Comment icon #13 Posted by Jon the frog 1 month ago
1. Lone found prehistoric skeletons don't form population either. Sure you dont compare nanism to gigantism but comparing a native Papuans, a Scandinavian and an Inuit skeletton side by side in the same base of a prehistoric studies...a zealous anthropologist would find a some different species to put his name on. We are talking of hundred thousand of years change on a species. Nutrition, geograhical location and behaviour of an ancestral group could make big intraspecific changes but still retain reproductivity and fertile offsprings. 2. Genetics ? Glad that Denisovian, Neanderthal and oth... [More]


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


Our new book is out now!
Book cover

The Unexplained Mysteries
Book of Weird News

 AVAILABLE NOW 

Take a walk on the weird side with this compilation of some of the weirdest stories ever to grace the pages of a newspaper.

Click here to learn more

We need your help!
Patreon logo

Support us on Patreon

 BONUS CONTENT 

For less than the cost of a cup of coffee, you can gain access to a wide range of exclusive perks including our popular 'Lost Ghost Stories' series.

Click here to learn more

Top 10 trending mysteries
Recent news and articles