Classifying and grouping legal systems is said to be an elemental part of macro-comparative law. The author asks if it still is feasible to continue this macro-project or has it come time to play a memorial hymn now. Traditional comparative law has constructed manifold groupings and classifications, but according to the author the pieces of the puzzle have largely remained the same. However, the ... [Show full abstract] new strands of comparative law are saying that attempts to draw a map of the world’s legal systems are non-neutral biased projects because all classifications, categories, taxonomies and groupings are fundamentally flawed. The controversy between the tradition and critical or post-modern comparative law seems to end up in a state of epistemic confusion. What should be done in order to overcome the present deadlock of this debate? Two novel sketches for classification of the legal systems are presented and critically analyzed in the article. According to the author both of these are a clear indication of some inborn epistemic difficulties that macro-comparative law a priori seems to contain.