I don't get what they're saying here.

Adapids lived 34-55 million years ago. Orangutans, the most distantly related, diverged 12-16 million years ago. The hominid time line in contention, ie, the transition between the Australopithicus species and the Hominid time line is only 2.5-2.0 million years ago. So this animal is also in the genetic past for modern hominids, as well as the apes...I'm not seeing ground breaking information, just based on the time line.

I think you're confusion comes from their use of the term "missing link." Apparently, adapids are a link in primate evolution, just not the one you were thinking of.

It's unfortunate that a term like "the missing link" was used at all.

It will be misinterpreted by many people and likely used in ridicule by the Creationists.

The popular notion that a half human half ape will be discovered and will be the fabled "missing link" should have been recognized as a problem.

Not a well written article. I completely agree with DerAlt,...that term should be avoided at all costs.

Further, it appears that the Telegraph doesn't employ a copy editor to prevent the story to be repeated twice VERBATIM in the article. Really?

I learned a new word from this article "blither" apparently it means the same as "blather"

it must be fun to use these crazy British words

Is there someone on the staff there at that paper who is editing the thing? Why does most of the story repeat later on down the page?