1. I was being facetious. I don’t care about the use of the word “mysterious” in the title. I just wanted to insert my joke about people who are nitpicky about

1. I was being facetious. I don’t care about the use of the word “mysterious” in the title. I just wanted to insert my joke about people who are nitpicky about article titles in cases when it honestly doesn’t matter such as this one. (Maybe facetious isn’t the right word because, again, this isn’t a serious issue. The article title is fine as-is. It’s not clickbaity in the slightest and the lede isn’t buried or insert usual explanation for nitpickiness) 2. Your suggested title is only better depending on the target audience (and if you don’t capitalize “naledi” or “sapiens” after “Homo”, ha more nitpickiness). It’s CNN, not Scientific American. Better is subjective. TLDR: On HN, there’s too much pedantic circle-jerking going on related to fixing article titles. We get it. We’re all “smart”. (For more context, I’ve seen so many complaints about article titles over the last few weeks. It’s ridiculous. GP’s comment that asked “which humans?” was literally the first and only comment on this post when I viewed it earlier. That’s annoying. The literal second comment was mine which basically says “stop complaining, the title is explained in the first 2 sentences of the article”.)