How accurate is this prog family tree?

I used to love Sounds. Very happy memories of those bizarre and pointless arguments about the death of punk and the rise of Oi Oi, led, of course, by that paragon of British quality journalism. Garry Bushell.

Happy days!

In what way? Geographically or musically?

Does Italian heavy prog sound distinctively Italian? Ditto Italian folk prog?

What about our German friends? Is there something about Krautrock which is so distinctive that it is set utterly apart from, say, some of the more British avant stuff being produced at the same time?

This has got me in a wee bit of trouble in the past, but I am old enough to remember this argument raging over the years. Did we distinguish these sub-genres because of the nationality of the participants, or because they were so musically unique and the nationality aided this? What if a British band were to come along and record an album which sounded like, say, PFM at their height? Would that be RPI? We do have this problem with Canterbury Scene, which was so called because of a group of musicians who got together and created music and a feel in, erm, Canterbury, and yet we allow bands from, say, deepest Glasgow who make an album sounding like a scene album into that sub-genre, which is so historically incorrect it is painful.

I say this not to be controversial, but to highlight an ongoing debate which will, frankly, never be satisfactorily resolved.

Not really. A "continental breakfast" is relatively cheap with a limited menu. 

Maybe this one makes a bit more sense.

Now that's the kind of prog family tree I like, with more branches than the Major Oak in Sherwood Forest. 

As well as the aforementioned issues with missing genres, when put against the family tree of just three prog acts, it does seem more than a little lacking.