Note that the next thing, A. africanus, over from the modern chimp looks a lot like the chimp, and it's the oldest skull in the series at 2.6 million years.
The text immediately preceding the figure:
One of the most celebrated examples of transitional fossils is our collection of fossil hominids (see Figure 1.4.4 below). Based upon the consensus of numerous phylogenetic analyses, Pan troglodytes (the chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of humans. Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. Over the past century, many spectacular paleontological finds have identified such transitional hominid fossils.From a source which should be familiar to you by now, and yet every thread is like your first thread.
One of the big peeves of evolutionist is the claim they they believe man evolved from apes, which this chart infers :-)
How does this chart indicate that Australopithecus evolved? Agruably you can say it devolved since it's cranium is bigger than the chimps, or, more reasonably, say it was a type of primate that became extinct -- which appears to be a widely held view among scientist in good standing in the evolution club.
Regardless, the fossil record is subject to debate.
Also, J, K and L show Neanderthal man. Why would they be on a chart of the family tree of man?
However to be able to produce such fine obviously step-wise evolution of morphological classificatiuon (ordering by shape chateristics) amoung artifacts -- where those artifacts were to be man-made, say arrow-heads, or watches made by watchmakers -- is a strong indicator of design evolution, where designers share and evolve designs for some purpose. Thus by a rule of logic and science know as induction, to have such an morphologically evolving step porgression of skulls is an indicator of DESIGN.