You are correct about the ratios not mattering that way, but it is jarring for someone who knows about this stuff to see 4/3 (the fourth) instead of 3/2 and to

You are correct about the ratios not mattering that way, but it is jarring for someone who knows about this stuff to see 4/3 (the fourth) instead of 3/2 and to see the positioning of the wolf being the I-V relationship in the scale. I would suggest that if you want to keep it, you should be explicit that the frequency relationship on this fifth is far off, and I would suggest drawing a circle of fifths (which will be a lot more clear after seeing a fifth in the harmonic series). Instinctively, that section feels very wrong despite being (mostly) right. I would personally suggest dropping it entirely - you don't need the history. Edit: I was thinking about your existing diagram a bit more, and here is the rework I might suggest without doing anything too major: Do an up-a-fifth-down-a-fourth path through the chart, and that is easier to rationalize and understand than "mostly 4/3 with 2/3 ratios interspersed when we need to drop an octave": C * 3/2 -> G G * 2/3 -> D D * 3/2 -> A A * 2/3 -> E E * 3/2 -> B B * 2/3 -> F# There is only one break from the pattern right here with two descending perfect fourths in a row: F# * 2/3 -> C# C# * 3/2 -> G# ... You can also restart from C going down to F and Bb once you reach F# and that gives you the typical Pythagorean tuning, but then you will have to explain why that happens to readers who are unfamiliar with tuning.