In another simultaneously published paper, British physical anthropologist Chris Stringer doubted the validity of ""H. s. idaltu"", saying the material was similar to some Late Pleistocene Australasian specimens. White "et al." made note of this, but still considered Herto Man "clearly distinct". In 2011, American anthropologists Kyle Lubsen and Robert Corruccini compared BOU-VP-16/1 with Skhul 5 from Es-Skhul Cave, Israel (temporally close to the Qafzeh materal), and instead reported these two skulls are closely allied with each other. That is, their analysis found no support for Herto Man's position as a transitional morph, nor the nomen "idaltu". In 2014, anthropologists Robert McCarthy and Lynn Lucas considered a much larger sample than White "et al."—using several specimens representing "archaic "Homo"", Neanderthal, "early modern "H. s. sapiens"", and Late Pleistocene "H. s. sapiens"—and arrived at the same conclusion as Lubsen and Corruccini. Citing these two studies, in 2016, Stringer, in his review of literature regarding the derivation of "H. s. sapiens", said the name "idaltu", "does not seem justified." The main issue of palaeosubspecies validity lies in the vague definitions of "species" and "subspecies", especially when discussing a chronospecies (an unbroken lineage which gradually changes, making the exact end-morphology and start-morphology of the ancestor and descendant species unresolvable). The original describers in 2019 still upheld the name ""H. s. idaltu"" because their argument, "depended largely on discrete traits," whereas Mcarthy and Lucas, "focused only on the gross cranial metrics", but also stated debating the exact taxonomic names and labels is overall not as important as understanding trends in human evolution.