Something like this?
In this graph, every point may be connected to another point, but only with one arrow. Now, one arrow is representing one relation : the fact that one bowline is an "Eskimo" version of another, for example. However, there may well be other relations between them : those bowlines can both use the same form of collar structure, an "8" shaped overhand knot, for example. So, in general, bowlines are "
pointing" in more than one other bowlines, in more than one ways - and this is what keeps the whole graph interconnected.
I wish to emphasize one thing : All bowlines are but variations on the same theme, so anybody can figure out how they are tied, how they work, and why they are so good eyeknots as they are. Once one has seen the landscape, the forest, from above, he can easily distinguish each tree : nothing would seem mysterious to him. Something like the multiplication table : Once you understand what multiplication is, and you learn the name of each individual "cell", you will never forget it.
Of course, there may be some surprizes, some extreme points that do not seem to be related to many others - the braised bowline, for example was such a surprize for me, as the Tweedledee bowline might be for others, but this does not change the general picture.
Some people have some difficulty to memorize a map or a chart, because the human brain is not evolved for this ! I live in the centre of an old city, full of tourists, and I always smile when I see somebody who rotates the map he holds in his hands, to understand where he is - or even he keeps the map horizontal, on a particular orientation, and he himself goes around it, in circles !
That means nothing. The poor tourist can well be the smartest human in the world, but his brain does not help him in this particular point. Most of the difficulties the man on the street encounters with knots stems from the fact that human brain can remember a thousand faces, for example, easily, but not ten knots ! What should we do ? We can not change the DNA of people who can not read and remember a map, of course, but
we can simplify the map as much as possible.
It turns out that there are many ways one can draw a simplified map. There is no unique map that is easily memorized by all people. There was a contest for map designers to draw the map of the Paris Metro two years ago, and the results, of ways of representing this relatively easy "landscape", were eye opening : Many different options, to the point it was really hard to decide which would suit to the largest number of metro users.
Maps may be easy, but drawing them is not easy at all !
That is why one needs a deep knowledge of the field, he needs to
understand why the points are where they are and not somewhere else, and why the relations between them are these and not others -
BEFORE he can draw a simple, revealing, useful map. That is why I said say that
the bowline taxonomy should only come at the end of collecting all the interesting specimens, not at the beginning . I am not sure that the exploration of the Land of the bowlines has ended, that anything that could have been found is found already, and so we can now devote ourselves in drawing the map of this Land. I see the brave talented explorer Alan Lee to present the one secure bowline after the other with an astonishing pace - I am sure that any map would do more harm than good to him, because it will solidify a vivid stream of ideas, before it reaches its final destination.
In short :
Show me the bowlines - all of them, persuade me that there will be no others, never, that there can be no others, and then I will draw you a nice, good looking map !
Until then, we can only collect the specimina, put them into glass tubes, label them with provisional descriptive names, and wait.