The only “offical” system of classification is whatever the current ATypI version of the Vox system is. There really isn’t any other organization trying to maintain a standard. Poke around some more and you’ll quickly discover that just about everybody who writes a type textbook has something to add.

Good answer, James. Classifying type is not a science like classifying animals or plants. It's far too subjective to be useful to everyone. I would examine a few methods and then organize in a way that make sense to you.

Hi Bailey,

check this out:
Typeface Classification Schemes
F

Rather than static classifications I prefer categorizing by aspects like Noordzij's translation (broad nib pen contrast) vs expansion (pointed pen contrast), serif vs sanserif, upright vs italic construction, maybe round vs broken curves, which together allow covering a wide range of typefaces: The Renaissance/Humanistic, Transitional, Classicistic distinction can be applied to serif and sanserif type alike, even to slab serif type (which offers a finer grid than the single "Egyptian" in your list). Turning to the broken category, maybe consider, with Noordzij, Textur as a broken upright and Fraktur as a broken italic, rather than just "Blackletter". This approach helps to look at typefaces more carefully and focus on their construction rather than secondary or even accidental aspects.
Limitations of static classifications become obvious with "Calligraphic" or "Stylized/Decorative" which can contain very different typefaces for which there is no place in any other case.
If you can get hold of it, have a look into the first volume of the Scangraphic Digital Type Collection, edition 4/1990, pp. 65-81.

I classify by place and date.

Bailey, another book you might want to look up is Printing Types: An Introduction, by Alexander Lawson. Chapter 3 is devoted to type classification and includes a discussion of the Vox system, the ATypI system, the British Standards system, and the DIN system, plus Lawson's own attempt to formulate a rational system.

There is also a very good article by Jonathan Hoefler, "On Classifying Type", in Emigre 42. Maybe you can find it at a library.

Thanks to everyone for all the great links and suggestions, I have a much better understanding of the different classification systems now

Bailey