there's obviously a strong family resemblance, but scheme's focus on purity over practicality lends to a much different feel.
one of the illustrations from this 20 year old discussion that someone linked here a bit ago [t] was that, while you might say c is a 'member of the algol family', you wouldn't say that c 'is an algol'.
perhaps an extreme example, but the idea is that lisp having a history of multiple implementations doesn't make scheme one of them.
put another way- while schemes extrapolate on a similar kind of purity to that which lisps are already famous for, giving them a kind of 'more lisp than lisp' aura, that shouldn't negate the language split.
