Search

In the comment on our paper, Prevosti et al. (2024) make a series of criticisms regarding the alleged lack of information provided on the dated samples and their geographic and stratigraphic provenance. In this contribution, we will give a reply to their comments. Our new zircon dating achieves the objective of the original study and provides valuable insights into the paleoecological dynamics of the period. It was out of the scope for our work to undertake a high resolution stratigraphical/sedimentological and dating analysis of each of the selected outcrops/sites. • First zircon dates from Neogene classic sites in central Argentina are provided. • The new dating achieves the objective of the original study. • Dating sets a solid time frame for paleoecological interpretations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sanz-Pérez et al. (2024) recently, based on detrital zircon, presented new maximum depositional ages for several sites of the Neogene of central Argentina to constraint the age of the faunas studied with stable isotopes. Unfortunately, the precise provenance of the dated samples is not clear. In this comment, we discuss the absence of key basic information to replicate their (geochronological) study, or even to evaluate their inferences and conclusions. Without more information about the precise geographic provenance of the dated detrital zircons, and their stratigraphic position in the geological profile/schema of each locality the interpretation of the authors is not supported by the presented information. • Detrital Zircon Dates presented by Sanz-Pérez et al. (2024) lack of precise geographic location information. • These samples lack of any stratigraphic position in the profile of each location. • Based on a new work, the date of Salinas Grandes is from the top of the profile, and irrelevant for age constraint. • Geochronological inferences of Sanz-Pérez et al. (2024) are unsupported by the data presented in the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]