With reference to the above cited paper, we were surprised to see that the authors present four isotopic ages obtained in diVerent localities from that of the Wgured section (Oura Neogene section, Fig. 2) and use them to support very speculative (and most likely erroneous) conclusions. None of the four numerical dates presented were obtained from the Oura section. Instead, they derive from diVerent outcrops and diVerent sections, with no direct correlations. In addition, no reference to isotopic dates from the Oura section published in Pais et al. (2000) was made despite the paper was cited by Cachao et al. (2009). Also, some paleontological and biostratigraphic data (Antunes et al. 1981) concerning the Oura section are not discussed. The Oura Neogene section coordinates (Google) are 37°05 02 /8°13 50 . In fact, the numerical dates of 8.15 Ma (§0.29) and 7.15 Ma (§0.27) presented in the lower part of bed 3 (Fig. 2; Cachao et al. 2009) were obtained by Boski et al. (1995) in glauconitic sediments from the Gale/Castelo region, at a location with coordinates 37°04 25 /8°17 50 (Fig. 1). We obtained another date of 10.1 Ma (§0.25 Ma), in the same Gale/Castelo region, from a locality with coordinates 37°04 51 /8°18 58 , which is not referred to by Cachao et al. The isotopic age 3.0 (+2.5/i1.0) Ma presented from the upper part (bed 8) of the Wgured succession (Oura Neogene section, Fig. 2) was obtained by us in a diVerent section named “Olhos de Agua”, with coordinates 37°05 27 / 8°10 40 , in a mollusc-rich bed, intercalated with whitish, and thin Xuvial sandstones (Fig. 2; Legoinha (2001), p. 178, Wg. 64). Although the description presented by Cachao et al. for bed 8 (Oura Neogene section, Fig. 2) may correspond with that of the original level dated in the Olhos de Agua section, it does not bear much similarity to the observed lithology of bed 8, in the Oura section, which is a conglomerate containing quartz and highly abraded oyster clasts. We also studied and logged the “Oura Neogene Section”, but under the name Auramar (“Corte de Auramar”) (Antunes et al. 1981; Pais 1982; Legoinha 2001). A correspondence between our description and measured section (see Legoinha 2001, p. 177, Wg. 63) and the graphic columnar section of Cachao et al. (2009) can easily be established. Notice that in bed 3 (where they place the age from Boski et al. 1995) we have obtained an isotopic age of 9.5 (+1.0/i0.5) Ma (which was also referred to in Pais et al. 2000, in the table of isotopic age data). Furthermore, we have obtained an isotopic age of 8.3 (+2.2/i3.3) Ma, for bed 6 of Cachao et al. (2009), which they do not make reference to. Notice again that in bed 12 of our section (coarse conglomerate with large oysters), which corresponds to bed 8 of Cachao et al. (2009), they erroneously put the age that we obtained in the Olhos de Agua section. On the other hand, in the “Oura Neogene section”, we have not obtained any numerical dates for the Lagos Biocalcarenite (Lagos Portimao Formation). However, Cachao et al. indicate 11.3 Ma (+0.9/i1.3), which was obtained by us at an outcrop (some 7 km westward) at Gale Beach. We should note that in the Olhos de Agua section, which is nearer to the Oura section (some 3 km eastward), we obtained an isotopic age of 14.4 Ma (+0.5/i0.6) for the top of the Lagos Biocalcarenite (Lagos Portimao Formation) J. Pais (&) · P. Legoinha CICEGe, Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 2829-516 Caparica, Lisbon, Portugal e-mail: jjp@fct.unl.pt
Read full abstract