Not really, Q. Australopithecines are the clear link between the apes that precede them and Homo habilis who appears later down the line. There were some clear dead-ends (the robust Australopithecines) and some clear gracile versions leading to H. habilis.
Some critter had to be the first one who stood upright and walked around. These were the Australopithecines. And they are very clearly transitional. The early ones had foramen magnums that are centrally located (like humans), indicating bipedality, yet their fingers and toes were still curved bone (indicating a body built for tree-climbing). Their heads look pretty much exactly like modern chimps, except for that centralized foramen magnum, only found in bipedal primates. Clearly, something in bipedal locomotion strongly favored larger brain size, as down the line H. habilis shows an increase in brain size and the first stone tools.
I really don't understand why everyone talks about missing links. When I line up the skeletons in the lab, I don't really see anything missing. Sure, we may find more species out there, but in terms of a really clear progression from ancient (and now extinct) ape to (now extinct) Australopithecine to H. habilis to H. erectus to early Archaic H. species to Neanderthals and modern H. sapiens... it's a pretty clear line. We don't know everything about who was breeding with who and yet the skeletal evidence is so plain that I've had non-biology people in their first class go "Wow- I didn't know you could SEE it!" The mosaic of human traits is pretty evident.
