[1] Our paper [Onezime et al., 2003] was basically aimed at providing a new, and thus debatable, geodynamic interpretation at a regional scale of the South Portuguese Zone, of which the Iberian Pyrite Belt (IPB) is part. Our study relied mainly on new structural data and facies analysis, with some emphasis on the volcanic and related facies of the Volcano-Sedimentary Complex (VSC) of the IPB, on which Boulter’s [2005] comments concentrate. Boulter complains that his ideas about the IPB and more specifically his interpretations of the VSC volcanic and volcaniclastic facies [Boulter, 1993a, 1993b, 1996] were not correctly rendered and were partly misinterpreted in our paper. A huge literature exists about the IPB geology, and various authors have dealt in more or less detail with the volcanological aspects of this belt. There was reasonably no room in our paper for an in-depth discussion of all relevant previous interpretations on this topic, including Boulter’s sill-sediment model. Some other workers in the IPB have already stressed the poor consistency of this model with the field observations at the regional scale [e.g., Carvalho et al., 1999], and recent reviews of the IPB geology and metallogeny do not rely much on this model [e.g., Leistel et al., 1998; Saez et al., 1996, 1999]. We restrict our reply to the issues raised by Boulter in his comment. [2] We acknowledge the fact that Boulter [2005] reported extrusive volcaniclastics and resedimented volcanic deposits in the VSC. We thus acknowledge that our quoting of his model as ‘‘a complete intrusive model’’ was a bit loose in this regard. However, the claim by Boulter that ‘‘he did recognize the importance of stratified volcaniclastic rocks in the Pyrite Belt’’ does not give any support to the sillsediment model he in fine continues to defend. It rather tends to weaken his case since such volcaniclastic facies are not normal components of intrusive magma-sediment systems. Boulter interprets them as mostly ‘‘extrusive hydroclastic breccias’’ derived from disruption, eventually explosive, of the sediment cover above the high-level intrusive system. In this interpretation, there is implicit assumption that such volcaniclastic deposits should be volumetrically trivial in the VSC, if this is still to be described as a sill-sediment system. We thus envisioned the extrusive component as being subsidiary in Boulter’s model and not worth to be quoted in our paper. It is concerning, and rather contradictory to his claim, that Boulter himself states that ‘‘the majority of the volcanic facies in the Rio Tinto district were peperitic intrusions that did not supply detritus to the sedimentary basin.’’ [3] Boulter [2005] pretends to understand that we are unaware of the possible formation of volcaniclastic rocks in intrusive conditions. This is rather unfair misreading of our writing. The exact wording of his comment is ‘‘Despite important amounts of volcaniclastic ‘‘deposits’’ (quotation marks added), a complete intrusive model has been proposed. . .’’. ‘‘Volcaniclastic deposits’’ in our writing referred to material that has been transported and deposited (either pyroclastic or resedimented), according to the common meaning. It was not to refer to the intrusive autoclastic facies reported and emphasized by Boulter in his papers. Intrusive (and extrusive as well) autoclastic facies in submarine environment of relevance here are mostly formed by quench fragmentation (granulation in our paper). We have made due recognition of such facies in the VSC (e.g., Figure 8 of our paper, our ‘‘autoclastic brecciated facies’’). Although locally conspicuous at the outcrop scale, they do not represent a prominent volumetric part of the volcanic province as a whole. [4] The issues raised by Boulter [2005] and discussed above should not obscure some more significant differences between his description of the VSC and ours. A major point is the evidence gained from our fieldwork that volcaniclastic deposits, both primary and resedimented, are, along with volcanogenic sedimentary deposits, a major component of the VSC in terms of volume. The volcaniclastic deposits are dominated by sandstones and lapillistones. In the perspective of the issues raised by Boulter in his comment, it is clear that this evidence does not match with the sillsediment hypothesis. There is obvious contradiction between a model where volcanics are dominated by intrusions, TECTONICS, VOL. 24, TC1010, doi:10.1029/2004TC001775, 2005