It's rubbish.
I can't comment on tetrachromacy or necromancy or whatever it is, I mean it is rubbish to draw any inferences from that image.
As already noted, it is untagged, so colours displayed are unpredictable. More: for given RGB values, even if you know the colour space, the actual chromatic values displayed on a screen depend on the RGB primaries used in that particular monitor. If you are trying to distinguish different spectral responses of different people, it is pretty meaningless to try to do it by means of displays on a monitor of unknown spectral output. Even if the image were tagged, and even if displayed on a calibrated and profiled monitor, the spectral output is unpredictable as it depends on the chromatic values of the monitor primaries.
For example, we all know that yellow can be created by red light plus green light. On a narrow gamut monitor, a saturated sRGB yellow might be R=100%, G=100%, B=0%. But a wide-gamut monitor, those RGB values would create a more intense yellow. To get the same yellow on a wide-gamut monitor, you might need something like R=92%, G=98%, B=33% (I didn't make those figures up; those are the RGB values for fully-saturated sRGB yellow, but represented in a very wide-gamut space).
In other words: on different monitors, the same colour is made up of different spectral components: different wavelengths of light in different combinations and intensities.
Even worse: that image is awful. It's been heavily processed and compressed down to a jpeg quality of about nothing, so there are heavy compression artefacts on the image (especially strong ringing on the edges) and this will also have distorted the colour of each step.
Apart from that, I'm sure that article is a genuine and inciteful addition to the gamut of human knowledge.