Not the reason at all. Even if you left the charge of the word "race" behind, no one ever uses that word to describe such a distant variety of humans as the one

Not the reason at all. Even if you left the charge of the word "race" behind, no one ever uses that word to describe such a distant variety of humans as the ones described in the article. I've read they compare to neanderthals and denisovans in their relationship with sapiens, and there's surely a reason why they were classed as Hominins (a two million year old tree) and not some narrower class. I'm still trying to get a better clarification, but the theorized extinct groups seem to require a far stronger word than race by any metric. Maybe subspecies would have preserved the idea of separateness while reconciling the interbreeding, but as you said, what you call this group of hominids is not that important anyways, but race gives the wrong idea in biological terms. And I'm sad so many people just downvoted the comment without clarification. I thought too it was political correctness at first until I looked into the time-frame more closely. It merited a decent reply.