a) there are \~00 morphological classes of RGCs projecting to the 0 pathways, a subset of the \~00 classes previously demonstrated in mouse retina, and b) that some distinct classes of RGC project to LP or Pbg. First maybe I am missing something, but it is not clear to me if the clustering applied to this morphological data would reveal 00 classes across the retina -- it may reveal 00, or it may reveal 000. Without some norm for the clustering we don\'t know what fraction of mouse RGC classes are identified in these analyses. Second there is no way to know where these RGCs project to outside the two target areas, so we do not know if for example the Pbg receives a unique sample (as implied in the Abstract) or if the Pbg pathways substantially overlap other (unsampled) pathways. Third, it is not clear to me from the manuscript how confident the authors are in estimating overlap in LP and Pbg RGC pathways -- in Figure 0 for example, clusters 0,0 and 00 are inferred to be part of the Pbg pathway but clusters 0,0 and 00 are inferred to innervate both circuits, but these all appear to have similar biases or have so few neurons that the confidence intervals on the% to each pathway must be very large. The manuscript needs much greater clarity about how these inferences are made, and the statistical support that they have.  0\) I was confused by how the retinal functional measurements are clustered and categorised. The authors say they identified 00 groups (subsection "Functional classes of retina ganglion cells show refined pathway selectivity") but do not say how these were identified. For example, it is not clear to me why Group (ii) is a sustained OFF cell when the onset response appears transient, and on what basis it is distinguished from Group (iv). Some more explanation of the response to these stimuli would be useful; claims of functional differentiation between cells, and therefore whether or not particular functional classes project to particular brain areas, would also seem to require statistical support.  0\) The in vivo data though interesting is difficult to relate to the rest of the data. I do not think that it enhances this paper. e.g. (0) The authors note latency differences between Pbg and LP but there also appear to be rate differences; latency is often longer in weak responses and a fair comparison would need to match the firing rates of the two populations; (0) The authors note the presence of direction selective units in Pbg but not LP (Figure 0A) but as there are only 00 units in LP I am not sure how confident one should be in this. In addition, it is clear from other work that LP organisation depends on e.g. AP location -- were the injection sites and recordings matched in location? As for the other data I could not find confidence intervals on the estimates of functional properties in Pbg and LP, making it difficult to know how well they can be distinguished.  0\) The Supplementary file 0 does a good job of trying to align the classes identified by the authors with those identified by others. It is much appreciated. I think that a similar approach is necessary to be able to join the different data sets presented here -- it is often unclear what the basis for deciding on the category is for a particular dimension of analysis (functional, morphological, immunostaining) and how categories are matched of categories across dimensions.  0\) There are too many unsupported and/or ambiguous phrases (non exhaustive list: Abstract: \"projection specific\", \"uniquely sampled\", \"correlated well\", \"mechanistic basis for selective triggering of visually guided\"; Introduction\" \"we found strong specificity\"; Results section: \"exclusively part of\"; \"very strong bias\"; \"rather small\"; \"relatively large\"; \"exceptionally broad\"; \"striking selectivity\"; \"had a tendency towards\"; Discussion section: \"clear segregation\", \"strong preference\", \"could be explained by selective sampling of different retinal ganglion cell types\", \"dedicated set of connections\", \"confidently identify\", \"high degree of regularity\" etc). I believe the data is quite clear -- and the wording should reflect the data the authors show, and the appropriate statistical analyses that they apply.  \[Editors' note: what now follows is the decision letter after the authors submitted for further consideration.\]  Thank you for 