 The authors have significantly revised the manuscript by adding more data, performing new analysis, and including necessary discussion. The manuscript is much improved as a result. My only remaining issue is the \"all-or-none\" statement regarding projection specificity. I disagree with the new bootstrap analysis used to support their conclusion and I am skeptical of the procedure to analyze percentage instead of the absolute numbers. My concerns are elaborated below.  Using \"cluster 0\" as an example, 00 cells were found, with 0 in Pbg experiments and 0 in LP experiments, out of the 000 to Pbg and 000 to LP (by the way, was there 000 or 000 total cells in the data set? The numbers in the manuscript are inconsistent).  From these numbers, the authors calculated the percentage to be \~0% to Pbg and \<0% to LP. I agree that there appears to be a preference for RGCs in this cluster to project (indirectly via SC) to Pbg, and I also think such a result is worthy of a publication. But the authors went with a bootstrap analysis that shows the percentage to the LP is NOT different from 0, thus stating they \"almost exclusively\" project to Pbg (and complete exclusivity in the summary figure in Figure 0). This is just wrong \-- cells in this cluster clearly project to LP. This statistical test is just inappropriate, and Figure 0 is dangerously misleading. Why not just illustrate the preference with lines of different thickness?  Regarding calculating the percentage, I am not sure that\'s appropriate or informative either. The percentage is out of the total number of labeled cells, not the likelihood of a certain type RGCs projecting to one structure over the other. Again using cluster 0 as an example, the 0 vs. 0 difference (\# of labeled cells) indicate that these cells are more than twice likely project to Pbg, from the RGCs\' perspective in terms of \"projection logic\", but not quite the 0 times difference as indicated by the percentages. Additionally, the authors acknowledge that the labeled cells in LP experiments were consistently more than in the Pbg experiments, and that this could be due to the fact that Pbg was difficult to target (Subsection "Retrograde transsynaptic labelling of retinal ganglion cells"). In other words, the percentage difference could likely be affected by experimental factors.  