Comment on “Palynological, palaeoenvironmental and sequence stratigraphical analyses of a Turonian-Coniacian sequence, Beni Suef Basin, Eastern Desert, Egypt: Implication of Pediastrum rhythmic signature”. by: Tahoun et al., Marine and Petroleum Geology (2017), 88, 871-887

• Published in: Marine and petroleum geology 2018-04, Vol.92, p.1085-1087
• Main Authors: Anan, Tarek, El-Soughier, Maher I., El Atfy, Haytham
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Egypt; Pediastrum; Sequence stratigraphy; Upper Cretaceous
• ISSN: 0264-8172; 1873-4073
• DOI: 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2018.02.008

Our comment is in keeping with our original approach which has been published by El Atfy et al. (2017), and is largely concerned with testing of Pediastrum as a key taxon in sequence stratigraphy and paleoecology of the Upper Cretaceous (mainly Turonian) successions based on subsurface material from the north Western Desert of Egypt. It was not an attempt to develop a regional depositional model for Upper Cretaceous rock units in Egypt and we are well aware that every basin has its unique characteristics. Our attempt aimed to interpret the peak occurrence of Pediastrum in the Upper Cretaceous marine sediments in the north Western Desert and to test its potential as a regional ecozone. Moreover, our interpretation has been enforced by heavy mineral analysis which represents reliable evidence of terrestrial input. Herein we need to explain our idea and to evaluate the criticism of Tahoun et al. (2017) to our contribution in which they unfortunately simulated our findings and reproduce them as they are own. •Proliferation of Pediastrum could be considered a good biostratigraphic datum.•The influence of freshwater input is supported by the presence of heavy minerals.•Herein we need to evaluate the criticism of Tahoun et al. (2017).