The Tibeto-Burman family of languages (often considered a sub-group of the Sino-Tibetan language family) is spoken in various central and south Asian countries, including Myanmar (Burma), Tibet, northern Thailand, parts of central China (Guizhou, Hunan), northern parts of Nepal, Bhutan, India (Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, the Ladakh region of Jammu and Kashmir), and western Pakistan (Baltistan).
The subfamily includes approximately 350 languages; Burmese has the most speakers (approximately 32 million). Approximately 8 million Tibetans and related peoples speak one of several related Tibetan dialects or languages.
Recently George van Driem has advocated elevating "Tibeto-Burman" to displace "Sino-Tibetan" as the top-tier language family, with the Chinese languages (Sinitic) classified as a sub-branch within the Tibeto-Burman/Sino-Tibetan family. This proposal has not been widely accepted.

Classification
I. Bodic (a.k.a. Western)
A. Bodish

i. Central Bodish (a.k.a. Tibetan)

a. Western Tibetan
b. Central Tibetan

i) Western
ii) mNgaẖris
iii) gTsang
iv) dBus (a.k.a. 'Central' Central Tibetan)
v) Southern Tibetan
c. Amdo Tibetan (a.k.a. Northeastern Tibetan)
d. Khams Tibetan (a.k.a. Southeastern Tibetan)
ii. West Bodish (a.k.a. Gurung, Tamang)
iii. East Bodish (a.k.a. Bumthang)
iv. Tshangla (a.k.a. East Bodic)
v. West Himalayish (a.k.a. Kanauri)
B. Himalayan

i. Central
ii. Kiranti
II. North-East India (a.k.a. Sal)
A. Bodo-Garo

i. Northern Naga
B. Jinghpaw
C. Luish (a.k.a. Sak)
D. Pyu
III. Kuki-Chin
A. Southern Naga
B. Kuki
C. Chin
D. Arleng
IV. Central
A. Lepcha
B. Western Arunachal
C. Adi-Galo-Mishing-Nishi (a.k.a. Abor-Miri-Dafla, Tani group of people believed to be descendants of ABOTANI, first Human being)
D. Digarish 'Mishmi'
E. Keman 'Mishmi'
F. Rawang (a.k.a. Nungish)
V. North-Eastern
VI. South-Eastern
A. Burmese-Lolo (a.k.a. Burmic)

i. Mru
ii. Gong
iii. Burmish
iv. Loloish

a. Northern
b. Central
c. Southern
B. Karen

Benedict (1972)
Unlike Benedict (1972), Shafer's tentative classification does not separate Sino-Tibetan into two branches: Chinese and Tibeto-Burman. Rather, Chinese (Sinitic) is placed on the same level as Benedict's subgroupings of Tibeto-Burman.
Sino-Tibetan:
I. Sinitic
II. Daic
III. Bodic
IV. Burmic
V. Baric
VI. Karenic

Ethnologue