I agree with adding the addendum to the 331131 packet, which is currently just based on MEC types (we'll have to add lots of notes, and we probably can't merge any LEC cells into this type in the future - see my note below). Gloveli Fig 3 has borderline A:SG presence anyway. The rest of our evidence for a DG projection only goes as far as the AB.

As for the 220233 packet, which as you point out is a mixture of MEC and LEC, I don't know. Deller says, "Injections located exclusively in the deep layers of the lateral entorhinal cortex labeled only very few entorhinal fibers, and these fibers usually were found underneath the suprapyramidal blade." The obvious answer is to split the 220233 type into MEC and LEC types. I might lean this way.

Overall, this type of evidence is similar to the marker inferences. We'll need a way to trigger it (or at least notify ourselves) when it might apply to future types. - CLR 12/11/2015

I am not sure that we can use this information. (This would be a good time to have "inferential" morphology evidence.) But basically, we only have somata and axonal data, so how do we link the information? In addition, I do not have a sense that the projection is massive, which might indicate that all the projecting neurons in the deep layers contribute to it. Taking all of this into consideration, I lean toward freezing the data due to incomplete morphology. Although prior to doing that, we might do a search for additional information in papers that cite this one. - CW 12/13/2015

A citation search turned up no new evidence. - DWW 12/15/2015

GAA suggests that this addendum only be applied to the MEC (e)331131p cells and that we add a big note mentioning that this is indirect evidence. - DWW 01/11/2016