Small additions:

• Doric Greek didn’t die.
• Portuguese isn’t more related to Spanish than, say, Spanish to Occitan, or French to Italian or etc. The timing for the split in the infographic [~1200 CE] hints that the author confused Spanish with Galician (Portuguese and Galician are more related to each other than to other Romance languages).
• Like Portuguese and Galician, Catalan and Occitan are likely more related to each other than to other Romance languages. To keep it simple Catalan is the descendant of Old Occitan as spoken in the Spanish March, a buffer zone in the Carolingian domains right at the border of the emirate of Córdoba.
• Recent developments group Italic and Celtic languages as a single branch, Italo-Celtic. Same deal with Armenian and Greek.
• The Quechumaran family is heavily disputed. Similarities between Quechua and Aymara are typically attributed to areal features; much like Mongolic, Turkic and Tungusic.
• Je-Tupi-Carib is also heavily disputed.
• “Avañe’ẽ” is specifically standard Paraguayan Guarani. It is not a generic term for Guarani varieties in general.
• The infographic is really messy when it comes to the placement of Babylonian, Assyrian and Akkadian, so just to be sure: they’re all Semitic. Also, “Semito-Hamitic” is a really old synonym for what’s typically called “Afro-Asiatic” nowadays.

Cool graph but kind of disappointed they oversimplified the whole of the pacific to “oceanic langauges”.

Like Fijian/Tongan/Maori/Polynesian are all very different.

What are they running away from?

Why is German “doubly derived” from Swiss German?

And why prefix German with “standard” when this is not done for other languages?

Austrian?

Where are the North American indigenous languages?

This is dumb.