As I said before the only clear differences I can see from the pictures are in the teeth, and it wouldn't surprise me if that was principally a matter of wear on the skull prior to fossilisation. It looks like a lot of the bone surrounding the roots of the teeth has been eroded away making them look much bigger.
According to the paper on D2700 the skull has suffered some damage which may account for some of the differences Al is seeing (
Vekua et al., 2002) ...
Vekua et al. writes:
The maxillae are slightly damaged anteriorly, the zygomatic arches are broken, and both mastoid processes are heavily abraded. There is damage also to the orbital walls and to the elements of the interorbital region and the nasal cavity. The condyles are missing from the mandible.
The damage to the maxilla is what I was describing as wear. There is actually a side view in the paper which makes the degree of erosion around the teeth much clearer, you can easily appreciate that a large amount of the tooth roots are exposed (That image can be found
here).
To emphasise Coyote's point about multivariate analysis here are some of the measurement's the authors use to compare their new find to previously discovered specimens ...
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.