The ratio of fore- to hindlimb size plays an important role in our understanding of human evolution. Although Homo habilis was relatively modern craniodentally, its body proportions are commonly believed to have been more apelike than in the earlier Australopithecus afarensis. The evidence for this, however, rests, on two fragmentary skeletons, OH 62 and KNM-ER 3735. The upper limb of the better-preserved OH 62 from Olduvai Gorge is long and slender, but its hindlimb is represented mainly by the proximal portion of a thin femur of uncertain length. The present analysis shows that upper-to-lower limb shaft proportions of both OH 62 and AL 288-1 (A. afarensis) fall in the modern human range of variation, although OH 62 also falls inside that of chimpanzees due to their overlap in small individuals. Despite being more fragmentary, the larger-bodied KNM-ER 3735 lies outside the chimpanzee range and close to the human mean. Because the differences between any of the three individuals are compatible with the range of variation seen in extant hominoid groups, it is not legitimate to infer more primitive upper-to-lower limb shaft proportions for either H. habilis or A. afarensis. Femur length of OH 62 can only be estimated by comparison. Its closest match in size and morphology is with the gracile OH 34 specimen, which therefore provides a better analogue for the reconstruction of OH 62 than the stocky AL 288-1 femur that is traditionally used. OH 34's slender proportions are hardly due to abrasion, but match those of a modern human of that body-size, suggesting that the relative length of OH 62's leg may have been human-like. Brachial proportions, however, remained primitive. Long legs may imply long distance terrestrial travel. Perhaps this adaptation evolved early in the genus Homo, with H. habilis providing an early representative of this important change.