Biostratigraphic investigation and depositional model of the Late Thanetian Ranikot and the Ypresian Laki formations in the subsurface of the Southern Indus Basin, Pakistan

Comments on “Biostratigraphic Investigation and Depositional Model of the Late Thanetian Ranikot and the Ypresian Laki Formations in the Subsurface of the Southern Indus Basin, Pakistan”

“…In the recently published article on the LBF biostratigraphy and depositional setting, Asghar et al, (2021), reported LBF that were used for biostratigraphy and paleoenvironmental modeling. They collected and investigated 20 subsurface samples from two well sites i.e., Ranpethani and Khadeji wells, providing microfacies and micropaleontological data.…”

“…They collected and investigated 20 subsurface samples from two well sites i.e., Ranpethani and Khadeji wells, providing microfacies and micropaleontological data. Based on microfacies and micropaleontological observations Asghar et al (2021) discussed in detail the shallow benthic zones (SBZ) and depositional setting of the so-called Ranikot Formation and Laki Formation.…”

“…Asghar et al, 2021 used the term Ranikot Formation at least 69 times throughout the article but the Ranikot is not a Formation, it is a group of formations (i.e., Khadro, Bara, and Lakhra formations) (Cheema, 1977;Shah, 1977). Asghar et al (2021) provided a stratigraphic chart of the study area in which the Ranikot is mentioned as a group and the formations are further classified but they used the term Ranikot Formation in the manuscript title and text, and even in many places the authors used the term "Ranikot Limestone". Similarly, in many places used the term "Laki Limestone" for Laki Formation.…”

“…Asghar et al (2021) placed SBZ5 in Thanetian stage but in the updated shallow benthic zones the SBZ5 is assigned to Ypresian stage (e.g., Hanif et al, 2021;Papazzoni et al, 2017;Scheibner et al, 2005;Scheibner and Speijer, 2009). Asghar et al (2021) confidently claimed in the discussion section that the controversy regarding the age of the so-called Ranikot Formation has been overcome after their present study. However, the study led to another controversy regarding the name and age of the studied sequence.…”

“…The article provides 2 figures of 11 photographs for 10 taxa, 3 of which are in genus rank and 7 are in species rank. Many species based on which Asghar et al (2021) claimed that they defined the SBZ5 i.e., A. vredenburgi, A. aramaea, Lockhartia diversa, and Assilina dandotica are not figured and not present in the distribution chart. However, they mentioned in the text that the SBZ 5 is defined by these species.…”