The paper is pay walled, but there's something wrong with the phylogenetic tree diagram in this PR article. Looks like they have a triceratops as ichthyosaur a

The paper is pay walled, but there's something wrong with the phylogenetic tree diagram in this PR article. Looks like they have a triceratops as ichthyosaur ancestor, and maybe a turtle as plesiosaur ancestor. A very obviously fully aquatic animal is in the "ambiguously aquatic" ichthyosaur line. A front leg of a mosasaur ancestor gets expanded into a hind leg. Is this an AI generated diagram? If so, shame on them for either not noticing the wrongness, or being sloppy and leaving it in.