 the data.
 Divisive clustering only considers the distances between witnesses and does not take account of genealogical information. The resulting chart is not a genealogical tree as would be produced by phylogenetic analysis. Instead, it is a chart that indicates how the group of all witnesses divides into subgroups when the divisive clustering procedure is applied. Details of this procedure are given in the associated documentation accessible through the R statistical environment. For a good example of a phylogenetic analysis relating to New Testament witnesses, see Matthew Spencer, Klaus Wachtel, and Christopher J. Howe, “The Greek Vorlage of the Syra Harclensis: A Comparative Study on Method in Exploring Textual Genealogy,” TC: A Journal of Textual Criticism 7 (2002) http://purl.org/TC/vol07/SWH2002/. The “coherence-based genealogical method” developed by the INTF also uses genealogical information: see Gerd Mink, “Problems of a Highly Contaminated Tradition: The New Testament: Stemmata of Variants as a Source of a Genealogy for Witnesses,” in Studies in Stemmatology II (ed. P. van Reenan, A. den Hollander, and M. van Mulken; Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004) 13-85, for an explanation of this method. As an adjunct, the INTF has developed a Genealogical Queries program which provides access to a database developed in conjunction with their ECM: see Klaus Wachtel and Volker Krüger, “Genealogical Queries,” http://intf.uni-muenster.de/cbgm2/en.html.
 Chatfield and Collins, Introduction to Multivariate Analysis, 213, 220. A dendrogram that does imply a natural partition has long “branches” tipped by compact bunches of “leaves;” that is, within-cluster distances tend to be small when compared with between-cluster distances.
 See Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005) 306-13, for a convenient summary of these text-types.
 Robert B. Waltz, “Family 1739,” http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Manuscripts1501-2000.html#fam1739.
 Kurt Aland, “The Significance of the Papyri for Progress in New Testament Research” in The Bible in Modern Scholarship (ed. J. P. Hyatt; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1965) 336-7.
 D. C. Parker, An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) 174.
 Eldon J. Epp, “The Significance of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the New Testament Text in the Second Century: A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission” in Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 3; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989) 95.
 Robert B. Waltz, “Text Types And Textual Kinship,” http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TextTypes.html. The note which lists members of his family 2127 is found in “Appendix II: Text-Types and their Witnesses.” The link with von Soden's Ia3 is noted in “Appendix III: Von Soden's Textual System.”
 The association is evident from textual maps of 044 in Timothy J. Finney, "The Ancient Witnesses of the Epistle to the Hebrews" (PhD diss., Murdoch University, Western Australia, 1999) http://purl.org/tfinney/PhD/PDF/part3.pdf, 124. According to the dendrogram shown above, the Harclean Syriac (syr-h) also belongs in this cluster. The circumstances surrounding this revision of the Syriac are known; it was produced by Thomas of Harkel who consulted Greek manuscripts during its production around 616 C.E. at Enaton monastery near Alexandria. Perhaps the Greek witnesses which the dendrogram places near the Harclean Syriac (i.e. P, 044, and 0150) represent a variety of the text that was prevalent in monastic Egypt at the time?
 The UBS4 apparatus sometimes reduces the number of readings in a variation unit by lumping similar ones together. Even if the full range of readings is reported, it remains true that a typical variation unit does not have many readings once orthographic differences are levelled. Graphs by Mink, “Problems of a Highly Cont