Articles | Volume 45, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/jm-45-309-2026
https://doi.org/10.5194/jm-45-309-2026
Comment/reply
 | 
27 Apr 2026
Comment/reply |  | 27 Apr 2026

Comment on “Chronostratigraphic ranges of Early–Middle Miocene larger benthic foraminifera calibrated by planktonic foraminiferal assemblages (Sierra de Marmolance, Granada, SE Spain)” by Bolivar-Feriche et al. (2025)

Cesare A. Papazzoni, Andrea Benedetti, Antonino Briguglio, Lorenzo Consorti, and György Less

Viewed

Total article views: 347 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
277 53 17 347 16 14
  • HTML: 277
  • PDF: 53
  • XML: 17
  • Total: 347
  • BibTeX: 16
  • EndNote: 14
Views and downloads (calculated since 27 Apr 2026)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 27 Apr 2026)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 331 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 331 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 20 Jul 2026
Short summary
Oligocene fossils were retrieved from a Miocene deposit. Authors stated that their age should expand into the Miocene accordingly. Miocene age was not directly retrieved from the studied deposits but from a nearby outcrop not clearly connected to the studied succession. We argue that transportation events might have simply reworked Oligocene fossils into the Miocene material, as commonly occurs in ramp environments.
Share