See: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-map-of-mathematics-20200213/ It's no surprise that scientists would eventually get to the idea of making a map of scientific ideas. Such a task could be useful for orienteering, and possibly an opportunity to explore Hofstadter-esque quine-making. Such creations can eventually be seen as most indicative of the psychology particular to the cartographer or cartographers. Often times you will get some sort of phylogenetic tree structure, which needs to be amended with extra connections. The necessity of amendments seems to be the only common feature between the various tree models, and this underscores the empirical fact that mathematical ideas tend to converge as often as they diverge (ideas are not ultimately constrained by sexual or genetic reproduction). Alexandru Buium did not make the same mistake with definite / indefinite articles when producing "a map of mathematics", see also: https://math.unm.edu/~buium/mapp.pdf These are both interesting takes, but not entirely similar to the map that I would probably prefer, because time is not included as a variable of the branching process. Is there any reason for "Function Phylogeny"? And what is the best way to limit subjectivity? Any thoughts in general? --Brad