Well, yes, the hawthorn flys example are not (yet) true species, but they do show some significant movement (e.g. reduced fertility) toward that direction. This is just the point. Variation within a kind can lead divergent populations to becoming full species. And when that happens this is "macroevolution" by definition. (Macroevoltuion means evolution above the species level. If a new species arises you're in the realm of macro. If not you're "only" dealing with micro.)
once there were on a few type of Canine Dog,but now many would you call any of these (from the small tea-cup poodle to the Great Dane) not dogs
Your syntax is a little unclear, but anyway "dogs" refers to any member of Family Canidae, or Canids. Domestic dogs ("tea-cup poodle to the Great Dane") are indeed all one species, Canis familiaris.
BUT but there are many "dogs" (canids) which are good and independent species. For instance all true foxes are canids.
Therefore if you want to use the term "dog" in the ordinary scientific sense, claiming that they're all one "kind," then you're effectively admitting (whether or not you realize it) that "macroevolution" DOES occur within "kinds".
Five of those separate dog species are pictured below. Just for fun, can you identify which two of the seven are NOT dogs? Answers here.
Each pic is linked to a larger image.
