Comment on Gold et al. “The biostratigraphic record of Cretaceous to Paleogene tectono-eustatic relative sea-level change in Jamaica, Journal of south American Earth Sciences (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.jsames.2018.06.011”

Abstract

Gold et al. (2018) present a mid Cretaceous-early Cenozoic relative sea-level curve for Jamaica based on sedimentological and biostratigraphic data from spot samples made from Jamaican outcrop localities and well/corehole samples. They base their work on 200 samples from field outcrops and 600 samples from hydrocarbon exploration wells (many of the latter with cuttings contaminated with extensive cavings)/coreholes, of which 266 were assigned a depositional setting, palaeobathymetry and biostratigraphic age. Gold et al. (2018) use this dataset to revise the sequence stratigraphy of Jamaica, develop a relative sea-level curve and compare this with global sea-level curves. The paper by Gold et al. (2018) includes numerous errors of fact and doubtful interpretations. In this comment I highlight some of these problems based on my own, and my research students’ research over the last 22 years, my own collection of 20,000 + samples from Jamaica, and a thorough understanding of the literature.