One factor in Daynes’s reconstructions is the time it was completed.  Several of them are a decade or more old, and interpretations change.  Some of the images shown under erectus are from Dmanisi, which have at times been called ergaster, and are now arguably their own species.  Meanwhile, she’s done a more recent reconstruction of one of the Dmanisi hominids, and it is in its own section.  Also, these were all made for exhibits of some kind, and there may be some constraints put on them by the museum or whatever institution is footing the bill.  These issues arise for any artist whose work spans a decade or more.  You see the same trends with Gurche, but to a lesser degree since he has a rulebook he uses to keep the variations to a minimum and just lumps the erectus/ergaster reconstructions (including Dmanisi) into one gallery on his site.

Still, one of the interpretations of erectus and ergaster is that ergaster came first and is more primitive, evolving into erectus in Asia, while transitioning into something else (antecessor?, heidelbergensis?, rhodesensis?) in Africa and Europe.

I do wish the images were a bit large and lacked the copyright noticer, but I realize she doesn’t want to get ripped off.

Dave