The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus.
Macroevolution. Now, go away!
How do you cross genus lines? First you speciate.
That event creates the fork in the tree. Later on, somebody notices the branches have moved pretty far apart.
From the article (the part you did not post):
The numbers at the bottom of the graph are computed values. Specifically, whenever a first lower molar tooth was found, its length and width were measured. The values plotted are the logarithm of the length times the width. The researcher reports reasonable evidence that this value correlates well with body size. He used this approach because there were a lot more teeth than anything else. (Teeth often fossilize.) By measuring just teeth, it was possible to have a lot more data points.
Each horizontal line shows the range, the mean, and the standard error of the mean. As you can see from the ranges, a larger sample would have been nice.
From teeth they made up two totally new species and a new genus. When I say that paleontology is a bad joke, I mean it.
BTW - they did not even have ear-bones for these folk! How do they know they were even mammals?
BBTW - no I will not go away and let evolutionist lies go unanswered.
And you use teeth and only teeth to determine that event. Ergo, the teeth speciated.
From your citationA Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus.
The numbers at the bottom of the graph are computed values. Specifically, whenever a first lower molar tooth was found, its length and width were measured. The values plotted are the logarithm of the length times the width. The researcher reports reasonable evidence that this value correlates well with body size. He used this approach because there were a lot more teeth than anything else. (Teeth often fossilize.) By measuring just teeth, it was possible to have a lot more data points.
...
As you can see from the ranges, a larger sample would have been nice.
The article goes on to say "Gingerich has since extended this work, but the conclusion has not changed. ". Okay let's see the new evidence. Teeth don't convince me.