That's like saying that humans, chimps, bonobos and gorillas are "all primates." Actually, there is much, much more difference (both structurally and genetically) between an ostrich and a sparrow, or between a shark and a trout, than there is between a human and a chimp.
Anticipating your objection, I fully concede that there is a vast spiritual difference between humans and chimps, but that distinction is not in the realm of evolutionary science. My faith tells me that God created man in God's image, and that he did so from "the dust of the earth." Evolution tells me where that "dust" came from, and how that dust became (physically) human.
Like all evolutionists, you try to create confusion. Homo is the genus of man hence homo sapiens, homo erectus and homo neanderthalis. These are different species in the same genus. They are called different species because they could not produce progeny with each other. Primates is a higher classification than both species and genus, it is an order. So no, it is not the same thing as the examples given. The examples given were in some cases just sub-species, in other cases species. None were of a different genus. So no, they are not examples of macro-evolution. They are just examples of the garbage that evolutionists try to pass off as proof of their theory.