Reply to the discussion by Granier of Vincent et al., (2018) (Marine and Petroleum Geology, 91, 639–657).

Granier (2019) questioned the identification of a number of foraminifer species within the study of Vincent et al. (2018). We dispute his findings and provide supporting evidence for our original identifications. Our biostratigraphic work was carried out to support the strontium isotope stratigraphy study of an Upper Jurassic – Lower Cretaceous carbonate succession in the eastern Pontides, northeast Turkey. This was undertaken to constrain the age and duration of a number of hiatal surfaces within the succession that we proposed have geodynamic significance for the Black Sea region. Even if Granier's identifications are correct, they do not impact upon the conclusions of our study. Thus, rather than being a 'disappointing application of [a] geochemical tool', our study illustrates the utility of the powerful strontium isotope stratigraphy approach. • We dispute Granier's revision of our foraminifer identifications from NE Turkey. • We support our original interpretations with additional annotated illustrations. • The major stratigraphic gap in the section does not correspond to the Berriasian. • A Hauterivian age for the top of the section is compatible with our SIS data. • Granier's intervention does not affect the regional implications of our study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Marine & Petroleum Geology is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)