全球变化知识资源中心

Fernandes and Ribeiro (2015) described the evolutive history of the Bauru Basin in a clear and simple way, synthesising the research activity of the last 20 years. Sedimentological and stratigraphic data reflect the research activity of the senior author, whereas palaeontological information is a synthesis of data from literature. We do not believe that the evolutive history of the sedimentary succession of the Bauru Basin is as simple as described by the cited authors, but that other hypotheses, which are in strong contrast with the history considered in this article, exist. We exposed six main critical points in the model that Fernandes and Ribeiro (2015) presented. Each argument is presented and an alternative hypothesis is expressed. The criticisms are related to (1) the depositional interpretations of the Aracatuba Formation, (2) Vale do Rio do Peixe Formation and Echapora Member, (3) the homogeneity and distribution of the Marilia Formation, (4) the climate change in Bauru Group, (5) the inappropriate use of palaeosols and (6) some palaeontological misconceptions.

The objective of this comment is to raise a discussion showing to the readers that the stratigraphy and depositional history of the Bauru Basin are far more complex than that presented by Fernandes and Ribeiro (2015) and to show important alternative hypotheses not even mentioned by these authors. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.