 The paper is even stronger and the authors have addressed most of my previous concerns. I think this is an important set of experiments with strong anatomical conclusions and less strong functional conclusions. The authors inferences generally reflect these, are fair and justified by the data with some small exceptions.  0\) In the Abstract: \"These findings suggest that projection specific sampling of retinal inputs forms a basis for the selective triggering of behaviours by the superior colliculus\". I don\'t think that this statement is sufficiently supported by the work, as the functional distinction is not clear -- for example, the authors show that despite different retinal inputs, looming stimuli apparently activate both Pbg and LP pathways (not obviously consistent with the selective triggering of behaviours), while the potent chirp stimuli for the retinal ganglion cells apparently have no counterpart centrally and probably not behaviourally. I would think this needs rewording to offer speculation not conclusion (e.g. \"These findings open the possibility that projection specific sampling of retinal inputs helps form a basis for the selective triggering of behaviours by the superior colliculus\"). Similarly, the first paragraph of Discussion section accentuates the difference populations that are sampled, and ignores the similarities, creating the unfortunate impression that they are non-overlapping inputs.  0\) Subsection "Functional properties of retinal ganglion cells support anatomical classification" is less easily read than the other sections. I think that the authors have reconstructed 00 dendritic fields, assigned each to one of the classes, averaged the responses within each class, then assigned the non-reconstructed neurons to the same class on the basis of the similarity in their functional properties. There is some risk of circularity here, depending on the question. I am not too worried about that here, but I do think the authors need to be careful in presenting the physiological data because it may generate more certainty in anatomical-physiological correlations than is warranted. This can be circumvented by making it clear in the legends to Figure 0 and Figure 0. Also, the \'N=\' values on the left of the rows in Figure 0 should be adjusted to report the number of anatomically identified units in each cluster to make sure there is no confusion -- the total N could be reported in the physiology column. N values should also be reported in Figure 0.  One point- I can\'t quite work out the numbers here -- in subsection "Assigning recorded retinal ganglion cells" the authors state that 00 clusters had at least 0 cell with anatomy and physiology, then state they measured chirp responses of 000 patched cells (should this be 00?), and then state that they further analyse only clusters with at least 0 patched cells. In Figure 0 there 0 clusters (minimum number of units = 00). I therefore assume that the authors mean that the anatomical-physiological correlation of a cluster can be based on \<0 patched cells with both anatomical and physiological measurements. If not, please clarify, if so, please make that clear, and simply state the numbers of cells with combined a/p in each cluster.  0\) Subsection "Retrograde transsynaptic labelling of retinal ganglion cells": Some moderation on the Ntsr0 line is still needed. The Zhou et al., (0000) study cited shows fairly clearly only WF-like cells, probably though not certainly Ntsr0, in their Figure 0B but that is a contralateral section (ie. showing the contralateral projection to LP). Additional more superficial cells, which may or may not be WF, appear to be labelled in e.g. Figure 0C after LP injections. I\'ve not strong opinions about whether there are or are not multiple subclasses of SC neurons (including multiple subclasses of WF neurons) but I would argue that we don\'t yet know with certainty.  