The examples of well-chosen set of basics is Scheme R4RS, or pg's Arc. The examples of so-called natural selection are CL (an attempt to put together the best ideas and syntactic sugar from various implementations) and, surprise! Haskell, which is a product of a merge of efforts of ML/Lazy languages world.
On the other hand, there are languages created by one individual, according their own preferences, such as Perl, Ruby and Clojure.
Ruby, for example, it is a mix of features from Perl and Smalltalk, its author liked, but, of course, the resulting language is neither a dialect of Perl or Smalltalk. It is a language of its own.
Similarly, Clojure is a mix of features from various languages, notable Common Lisp, Smalltalk, ML, plus various Python-like comprehensions for vectors or hashmaps.
There are many other clever tricks, like simplified pattern matching, at the cost of sacrificing uniformity and announcing vectors as parameter lists for binding constructs, apparently from ML, and multi-method function declarations, also from ML.
The result is a language of its own, and cannot be called a Lisp, the same way Ruby cannot be called Smalltalk. The design decisions, while mostly clever, broke the uniformity and clarity of classic Lisps.
So, in my opinion, Clojure is closer to Ruby in its ideology, than to Lisp.