यजुर्वेदे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Source: TW

व्यासः
वैशम्पायनः

याज्ञवल्क्यः

kaNva
vaidheyashall
mAdhyandina
shApeyI
vidigdha
Apya
uddala
AmrAyaNa
vAtsya
gAlava
shaishhrl
ATavI
parNi
virani
saparAyaNa

अन्ये

shyAmAyani (charaka)
AruNi (charaka adhvaryu)
Alambi (taittirIya)

taittirIkaraNa

There were apparently taittirIyaka subschools that pronounced words like veshman (=house) as veshshppman. I have not yet heard of any modern practitioner from Mh, TN or A do that, though. The “taittirIyization” of a cluster of related KYV schools is an underappreciated topic.

Indeed the school of Plākṣí does not make the increment here (TPr 14.10) while Plākṣāyaṇá’s does (14.11). By 14.1 we should get véşşpp̃man normally, véşşman by Plākṣí, and véşpp̃man by Plākṣāyaṇá (14.17) and by Hārītá (14.18). I believe the yamá is universal in TPr (21.12). - nikhil

We would posit that the taittirIyaka-s & related KYVin serving as ritualists for the early Tam warlords& monarchs were likely following a distinct flavor of that school than the waves of later immigrants. However, that diversity had already emerged in the north& differentially transmitted to the southern realms rather than developing in situ in the south.

One exception might be the idiosyncratic recitational style that developed among the early settlers still preserved by the nambus. An independent case of such idiosyncrasy is the mAdhyaMdina.

Minority extinction

It is true that the kR^iShNayajurveda schools died out in their K-P heartland. There is not objective evidence that this happened due to the shu~Nga-s or kANva-s. We have insufficient inscriptions to give a precise answer. However, where we have more inscriptions we get an idea of the dynamic.

Once taittirIyaka-s were seen in va~~Nga, kali~~Nga & nepAla; however, now they are pratically extinct except for recent immigrants. They have greatly declined in lATAnarta & vidarbha.

The charaka-s were likewise in va~~Nga & kaTha-s possibly in prAgjyotiSha. But those are completely extinct. Instead, only shAkhA that survives is madhyaMdina or kANva (kali~~Nga).

The model in those regions was an aggressive spread of vAjasaneya-s which might even go back to the early period when one of the early proponents (seen as founder) of that tradition yAj~navalkya boosted his school.

Thus when vaidika traditions declined, it was more likely that the more numerous vAjasaneya-s survived except in the peripheries where the KYVs had taken firm hold. For e.g., in 600s Eastern va~Nga today BD the vAjasaneya-s are 10-20 times more common than charaka-s or taittirIyaka-s. So one can imagine who might have gone extinct first. The reverse can be seen in south Indian grants.