Comment on ‘Evidence for an Early-Middle Miocene age of the Navidad Formation (central Chile): Paleontological, paleoclimatic and tectonic implications’ of Gutiérrez et al. (2013, Andean Geology 40 (1): 66-78)

Reply to Comment of Finger et al. (2013) on: ‘Evidence for an Early-Middle Miocene age of the Navidad Formation (central Chile): Paleontological, paleoclimatic and tectonic implications’ of Gutiérrez et al. (2013, Andean Geology 40 (1): 66-78)

“…While we agree on most of the facts, it seems to us that Finger et al (2013) have a tendency to turn a blind eye to the latter. Finger et al (2013) state that our assessment of published data overwhelmingly favoring an Early to Middle Miocene age 'is misleading', citing various previous studies indicating the opposite. However, we referred to the published data, not the interpretation of this published data, and pointed out that almost all the species previously considered as occurring only in Upper Miocene to Pliocene strata have in fact been found elsewhere in Lower to Middle Miocene successions.…”

“…We thank Finger et al (2013) for their discussion of our paper and appreciate their honesty in retracting the proposed Late Miocene-Pliocene age for the Navidad Formation, due to misidentification of the foraminifer index species in question. In fact, although we suspected all along that these species may have been misidentified, such an allegation seemed improper to us in view of the recognized expertise of Dr. Finger as a micro-paleontologist, whereas none of us can claim such knowledge.…”

“…That left us with no other option but to suggest the earlier appearance of these species in the southeastern Pacific Ocean than elsewhere. Finger et al (2013) summarize most of the pertinent information on the Navidad Formation mentioned in our paper, reiterating their interpretation of the depositional environment as a middle bathyal (at least 1,500 m depth; Encinas, 2006), continental slope in contrast to our proposal of a continental shelf. While we agree on most of the facts, it seems to us that Finger et al (2013) have a tendency to turn a blind eye to the latter.…”

“…Finger et al (2013) summarize most of the pertinent information on the Navidad Formation mentioned in our paper, reiterating their interpretation of the depositional environment as a middle bathyal (at least 1,500 m depth; Encinas, 2006), continental slope in contrast to our proposal of a continental shelf. While we agree on most of the facts, it seems to us that Finger et al (2013) have a tendency to turn a blind eye to the latter. Finger et al (2013) state that our assessment of published data overwhelmingly favoring an Early to Middle Miocene age 'is misleading', citing various previous studies indicating the opposite.…”

“…However, we referred to the published data, not the interpretation of this published data, and pointed out that almost all the species previously considered as occurring only in Upper Miocene to Pliocene strata have in fact been found elsewhere in Lower to Middle Miocene successions. Finger et al (2013) contend that we 'do not recognize that all benthic animals are controlled by bottom facies that can be geographically diacronous'. Even though we are not invertebrate paleontologists, we know enough about paleontology not to ignore this concept.…”