I think the question is framed poorly, and on that ground I'd challenge it from two angles: First, one could argue that there are all sorts of additional C-lik

I think the question is framed poorly, and on that ground I'd challenge it from two angles: First, one could argue that there are all sorts of additional C-like languages that weren't listed - Java, C#, Rust, Go, etc. One could also argue that "Lisp" is a more fundamental category of languages than "C", so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Exhibit A: the author's list of Lisps included both dynamic and static languages, whereas the list of C's included only statically typed ones. It captures the idea of a functional language with a unified representation for both code and data. C-like, on the other hand, seems to specifically mean C and its superset languages (a much smaller family than its descendants) according to the author's usage.