The simplest way to describe the general features is to describe specimens that are generally
considered habilis by most people, and list their relevant traits.
Not exact matches
Most disruptive of all is the suggestion that not all the species grouped within our own genus are necessarily from a single lineage — or that, perhaps, some of the species
considered Homo, such as Homo
habilis, are really australopiths.
Zinjanthropus: it was indeed displaced by Homo
habilis within a few years of its discovery, but even before then it had never been
considered to be a human ancestor by anyone but Louis Leakey.
Phenetically, KNM - ER 1470 is closest to the remains from Olduvai [
considered apes by creationists] referred to H.
habilis.
Although Lubenow
considers 1470 to be human, he would place the smaller
habilis fossils such as OH 24, ER 1805 and ER 1813 in the australopithecines.
However Tobias (1987) shows that other
habilis fossils such as OH 7, OH 13, OH 16 and OH 24 (which creationists
consider apes) all share many advanced features with ER 1470.
Incidentally, I can't see why it is in the list («Skulls 9...» etc.) above, as at no time has it ever been
considered a member of Homo
habilis.