This is a thought provoking graphic.

It was originally form a Life Magazine article on religion from 1947... Link

It is fascinating see the historical roots of protestant churches.

Missing the orthodox schisms from 1054.  

Hilariously, that chart needs a whole lot more lines to account for the sects of today.

Are/were there Protestant denominations that sprung from Eastern Orthodoxy?  I know that there are several branches of Orthodoxy, often country-based.

Mea culpa, reading comprehension is hard.  Lolz

I was just wanting to see all the denominations that split from “the church”.   Then all the ones that did NOT spring from the Catholic Church like the Copts.

No worries, but my question still stands.  I don't know that answer.

My understanding is that while the Eastern Churches were not devoid of heresies, protestantism, as we know it, that exists in that part of the world metastasized from the West.

I have not studied nor put too much thought into the matter, but some central differences that stand out are:

1) The West had a mostly undisputed unity in leadership and liturgy, whereas the East still had original patriarchates.
2) National identity did not make a great difference in the West as it pertains to the Church, whereas in the East it was not necessarily so.  Many of the disputes in the East, at least in the past couple of hundred years, seem to have revolved mostly around national identify and autocephaly.
3) Christians in the East were under constant threat from farther East and/or from Islam.  With their numbers dwindling and constant pressure from outsiders, it stands to reason that pursuing theological differences would not rank high on their list of priorities, and maintaining Christianity was one of the few things they had left to their identity.  Additionally, under the Ottoman Empire, the patriarchs of Constantinople enjoyed some sort of protection for practical reasons.  I don't suspect anything of that sort would have been extended to heretics.
4) The West, for obvious reasons, enjoyed a greater freedom, patronage, and growth in science and art during the late middle ages and renaissance than the East did.  This expanse in the marketplace of ideas would not necessarily guarantee the prevention of errors.

Again, I have not studied or put too much thought into this, but I'll stand by for any posts with better insight.

Makes sense to me, especially given the modernist influences of the Enlightenment that seemed to get much less play in the East.

Baptists didn't spring from anabaptists.  

Lazy graph is lazy.

What is their lineage (assuming there is one)?

John Smyth, the "founder" of Baptists, was originally an Anglican clergyman who was a part of the separatist movement within the English Church that was growing in the 16th century.  He met Thomas Helwys who was a lawyer who sympathized with the movement.  They came to a credobaptist position and started a church.  The church relocated to Amsterdam in 1601 due to persecution.  While there the church split with Smyth leading a part of the church into a Mennonite community and Helwys leading the rest back to England where they began starting Baptist churches.

So, in a broad sense, you could say that they emerged from the general separatist mood that existed in Anglicanism at the time.

Really, the whole right side of that table is pretty wonky.  Its like Life Magazine had some categories of movements leftover that they really didn't know what to do with so they just called them all radicals.  I mean, the anabaptist movement would fit under that category, but that's it.

Thank you.

Yeah, no kidding.

It was published in 1947...

Maybe that is what they were going for...

This article states there was, "influence."

"Anabaptism influenced several nonconformist sects in England and the New World, especially the early Baptists..." Link

I believe that article generally makes your point as well...

I looked back at the original article with the graph... And the graph I found in a link (and posted here) did not contain the information on the bottom of the graph from the article... Link

"FAMILY TREE of Protestantism shows the descent through centuries of modern US churches from Catholic Christendom. The great separatist movements are shown at the top: Lutheranism, Calvinism, Radical Sects which are connected to Calvinism by a dotted line because many leaned toward the austere teachings of John Calvin. The Church of England separated on political grounds (upper left). From these four 16th Century movements many churches formed in Europe, came to America and separated from their parent bodies as indicated by US dates. The fans of lines shown in the chart represent independent churches in America which grew out of the individual movements, each line representing a single church. Those named, with dates of their founding, are most of the large or historically important churches. The graph also shows the union of three major Methodist branches in 1939 (lower left) which split in the 19th Century. Since Protestant theologies overlapped each other during their growth, a graph like this has rarely been attempted. It is an extreme simplification, showing each church only in relation to the movement with which it is most closely connected."

A couple key facts... It is the family tree of "modern US churches from Catholic Christendom." And it acknowledges that the graph is an "extreme simplification."

The idea that Baptists have descended from anabaptists is a pretty common misperception.  To the extent that I’ve had students report back to me that this idea was being taught to them in an undergraduate level history of religion class.

So, either Life magazine was taking a side in an academic debate on how much the two movements cross pollinated during the handful of years that they interacted with each other, or they just restated a common error without doing any investigation or fact checking.

My gut tells me it was probably the latter.

Anabaptists as Baptists is part of larger desire to try conflate the rise of Protestantism further back in history than it should temporally appear.

It strains credulity to conflate the practices of a Mennonite or Hutterite is kind of funny.

Perhaps adult baptism, but IIRC ultimately Baptists are the logical extension of Low Church Anglicans, which is fine in an of itself.

Metastasized?  You consider protestants a cancer?

I honestly cannot remember why I chose that word two months ago, but since you posed direct questions, I don't want to dodge them.  

Protestants?  Of course, not (that stands as a matter of truth even if I didn't know so many protestants who much better people than me).  The errors of protestantism?  Yes.

Well I appreciate the clarity.  As I've matured I start to look back to the branches from Protestantism and put my eye all the way back to the great schism.  The fruit of some of the leaders of the western church tended to be a bit suspect, and I have to wonder if the seeds that spawned the protestant fractional didn't find their root in errors that first schism.  I appreciate the steadfastness of the western Catholic to their faith.  I do want to encourage historic introspection however as I have moved over time to be introspective of historic Protestantism.

I feel like from the west we are all still missing something down this branch, something that made the splits inevitable.  Just reflecting aloud.

Metastasize:  To spread, especially destructively

That does not imply that protestants are a cancer, but it is an accurate (IMO) description of the rapid growth in the number of denominations to the point where there are so many that individual churches (non-denominational) are in fact their own denomination and that spread's effect on Christian unity of teaching.