 One salient point emerged from the discussion among reviewers: a need to present the results about projection bias in a way more closely tied to the original data. Currently the data is subjected to a bootstrap analysis to determine if the number of projections to a given area is significantly different from 0, and the results are then summarized (e.g. in Figure 0) in an all-or-none fashion. But this does not accurately represent the fact that none of the RGC types projects exclusively to one or the other SC target area. We all agreed that the data should be presented in a more straightforward way -- e.g. as numbers of projections or the ratio of those numbers (with confidence intervals). Significance tests (probably non-parametric) could be applied to whether the number of projections to the two areas differ significantly. More details about those concerns, as well as several other issues, can be found in the individual reviews below.  