>>221634Not the guy that made that post, but I'm qualified to answer (in uni studying archaeology). It's complicated, but basically, the answer to your question is no.
There's an old debate about this this subject in paleoanthropology (old enough that the two sides have gotten names: lumpers and splitters), but the arguments about whether to split up species into different categories are all deeper than height. In fact, height isn't usually much of an issue at all when making these distinctions. They're mostly based on cranial features, like brain size, facial morphology, brow ridge, nose opening, zygomatic arch, some other things, and occasionally post cranial stuff. If a distinction is being made between species by someone, there's usually a good reason for it; the only reason disagreement exists is because not everyone is anal about details.
In my opinion, the guy in the article found something that is clearly a new species. I have no idea why he's saying it means H. habilis and H. erectus (which are hugely different from each other - there's no way they were the same species) are the same thing, because what he found is pretty damn distinct from either.
