J. Golonka, M. Krobicki, A. Waśkowska, M. Cieszkowski & A. Ślączka reply: We welcome the comments by our Slovakian colleagues and their critique of our results, particularly as we have discussed and published papers together several times about our ideas, sometimes, more or less, disputable (Aubrecht et al. Reference Aubrecht, Chowaniec, Gawęda, Golonka, Kępińska, Krobicki, Lefeld, Lewandowski, Michalik, Picha, Potfaj, Oszczypko, Słaby, Ślączka, Uchman, Golonka and Lewandowski2003, Reference Aubrecht, Krobicki, Sýkora, Mišík, Boorová, Schlögl, Šamajová and Golonka2006; Krobicki et al. Reference Krobicki, Aubrecht, Golonka, Golonka and Lewandowski2003; Krobicki, Aubrecht & Golonka, Reference Krobicki, Aubrecht, Golonka, Golonka and Lewandowski2003; Golonka et al. Reference Golonka, Gahagan, Krobicki, Marko, Oszczypko, Ślączka, Golonka and Picha2006; Pieńkowski et al. Reference Pieńkowski, Schudack, Bosák, Enay, Feldman-Olszewska, Golonka, Gutowski, Herngreen, Jordan, Krobicki, Lathuiliere, Leinfelder, Michalík, Mönnig, Noe-Nygaard, Pálfy, Pint, Rasser, Reisdorf, Schmid, Schweigert, Surlyk, Wetzel, Wong and McCann2008). We are pleased to see such warm reaction to our work/paper, which is focused on one of the rudimentary questions in the Pieniny Klippen Belt (PKB) area. How many/what kind of olistoliths/olistostromes occur within the inner structure of the PKB, and when and why did they originate mostly during the Palaeogene part of the Mesozoic–Cenozoic history of this region? We expected this discussion earlier. The content of our paper was presented at the 6^th Meeting of the Central European Tectonic Studies Group (CETeG) in Upohlav, Pieniny Klippen Belt, Slovakia (Cieszkowski et al. Reference Cieszkowski, Golonka, Krobicki, Ślączka, Oszczypko, Waśkowska-Oliwa, Németh and Plašienka2008), and later, at the XIX Congress of the Carpathian–Balkan Geological Association in Thessaloniki, Greece (Cieszkowski et al. Reference Cieszkowski, Golonka, Ślączka and Waśkowska2010; Golonka et al. Reference Golonka, Cieszkowski, Waśkowska, Krobicki, Ślączka and Chatzipetros2010). Some ideas were also briefly mentioned in the paper by Cieszkowski et al. (Reference Cieszkowski, Golonka, Krobicki, Slączka, Oszczypko, Waśkowska and Wendorff2009) in a journal issue edited by D. Plašienka. We assume that the comments are based on recent investigation, because the authors list the grants received to conduct the research. Therefore, the submitted comments sometimes present a point of view different from that published previously by some of the authors of the comments (RA, JM) (see Aubrecht et al. Reference Aubrecht, Chowaniec, Gawęda, Golonka, Kępińska, Krobicki, Lefeld, Lewandowski, Michalik, Picha, Potfaj, Oszczypko, Słaby, Ślączka, Uchman, Golonka and Lewandowski2003; Krobicki, Aubrecht & Golonka, Reference Krobicki, Aubrecht, Golonka, Golonka and Lewandowski2003; Wierzbowski et al. Reference Wierzbowski, Aubrecht., Golonka, Gutowski, Krobicki, Matyja, Pieńkowski and Uchman2006; Pieńkowski et al. Reference Pieńkowski, Schudack, Bosák, Enay, Feldman-Olszewska, Golonka, Gutowski, Herngreen, Jordan, Krobicki, Lathuiliere, Leinfelder, Michalík, Mönnig, Noe-Nygaard, Pálfy, Pint, Rasser, Reisdorf, Schmid, Schweigert, Surlyk, Wetzel, Wong and McCann2008). The statement, ‘Certainly there are many still unresolved problems in the geology of the PKB, and it ought to be said that the co-authors of this discussion also do not fully agree with all interpretations formulated and illustrated by the first author’ perhaps explains this controversy. Of course, we agree that ‘there are many still unresolved problems in the geology of the PKB’. We also agree with the statement ‘olistostromes and olistoliths are quite frequent, but not omnipresent’. We depicted the distribution of the olistoliths and their relationship to the non-olistolith tectonic units of the PKB in Golonka et al. (Reference Golonka, Krobicki, Waśkowska, Cieszkowski and Ślączka2015, figs 3, 8).

The paper by Golonka et al. (Reference Golonka, Krobicki, Waśkowska, Cieszkowski and Ślączka2015) used our detailed maps of the PKB: the Piwniczna sheet (Golonka & Rączkowski, Reference Golonka and Rączkowski1984a ,Reference Golonka and Rączkowski b ), map of the Pieniny National Park (Borecka et al. Reference Borecka, Danel, Krobicki and Wierzbowski2013), as well as the 1:200000 Bielsko-Biała and Nowy Sącz maps (Burtan et al. Reference Burtan, Golonka, Oszczypko and Paul1981; Golonka, Reference Golonka1981; Golonka et al. Reference Golonka, Borysławski, Paul and Ryłko1981). We reinterpreted these maps by doing detailed field work and relied on several graduate students’ theses as background (see D. Tłuczek, unpub. M.Sc. thesis, Jagiellonian Univ., 2004; Chrustek, Golonka & Janeczko, Reference Chrustek, Golonka, Janeczko and Stachyrak2005; Chrustek et al. Reference Chrustek, Golonka, Janeczko, Cieszkowski and Golonka2005; Tłuczek & Golonka, Reference Tłuczek, Golonka, Doktor and Waśkowska-Oliwa2005; Golonka, Krobicki & Tłuczek, Reference Golonka, Krobicki, Tłuczek, Doktor and Waśkowska-Oliwa2005).

We utilized detailed Polish maps constructed by different authors (see Birkenmajer, Reference Birkenmajer2014), as well as Slovakian maps (e.g. Nemčok, Reference Nemčok1990; Mello, Reference Mello2005). The work performed especially by the late Jano Nemčok was important, because this author introduced the olistolith concept into the PKB in Slovakia (Nemčok, Reference Nemčok1980). A more detailed study to distinguish the sedimentary structures from tectonic structures and to study their origins began in the Polish Outer Carpathians back in the 1950s (Radomski, Reference Radomski1957; Książkiewicz, Reference Książkiewicz1958; Dżułyński & Ślączka, Reference Dżułyński and Ślączka1959). Their origin was associated with submarine slumps. In addition, refolded sediments connected with slides of sedimentary breccias (olistostromes) that included exotic (sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous) rocks (olistoliths) were recognized in all tectonic units of the Outer Polish Carpathians (e.g. Ślączka, Reference Ślączka1961; Książkiewicz, Reference Książkiewicz1962; Jasionowicz & Szymakowska, Reference Jasionowicz and Szymakowska1963; Golonka, Reference Golonka1972). In some cases (Szymakowska, Reference Szymakowska1976), the amount of matrix inside the olistostromes was insignificant, even missing, and blocks contacted directly with each other or directly substratum even without traces of erosion. The size of the blocks could reach hundreds of metres. The results of further research were presented recently by Jankowski (Reference Jankowski2007), Cieszkowski et al. (Reference Cieszkowski, Golonka, Ślączka and Waśkowska2012) and Ślączka et al. (Reference Ślączka, Renda, Cieszkowski, Golonka and Nigro2012).

Our main idea was to review several sources of information published in papers and maps, including by our interlocutors, which presented both ‘traditional’ interpretations of investigated facts and new ones, most probably connected with the olistolith characters of some klippen and their distribution in the PKB territory. Such comparative studies and our re-interpretation(s) of older facts fit in several cases with our previous observations after our cartographic works (e.g. Golonka & Rączkowski, Reference Golonka and Rączkowski1984a ,b), where we suggested an olistolithic origin of some ‘klippen bodies’. Of course, the Polish part of the PKB was better mapped, and we tried to extrapolate our observations, but we also conducted field work on the Slovak side. We plan to publish several papers with detailed documentation of cartographic field work. We supplied two figures (Figs 1, 2) as an example of such work (Golonka & Waśkowska, Reference Golonka and Waśkowska2014). The field work, stratigraphic and sedimentological studies and the teledetection methods were supplemented recently by seismic surveys. The papers describing the results of this research are in preparation.

Figure 1.

Geological map of the Krościenko–Szczawnica area (from Golonka & Waśkowska, Reference Golonka and Waśkowska2014)

Figure 2.

Cross-section of the Ścigocki anticline (cross-line location in Fig. 1)

The occurrence of two major olistostrome belts within the tectonics of the PKB and adjacent areas is related to the palaeogeographic development of ridges, basins and their margin during Jurassic–Palaeogene times. The sediments, which form the main components of the PKB, originated within the Alpine Tethys on its margins. The term Alpine Tethys, which was introduced after the application of plate tectonics in the Alpine realm (e.g. Hsü, Reference Hsü1975), was used to describe the position of the ocean-related basins, linked to the opening of the Central Atlantic and located during Jurassic–Cretaceous times between the North European plate and plates belonging now to the ALCAPA (Alpine–Carpathian and Pannonian realms) and terranes associated with Adria (e.g. Golonka, Krobicki & Michalík, Reference Golonka, Krobicki, Michalík and McCann2008; Schmid et al. Reference Schmid, Bernoulli, Fügenschuh, Matenco, Schefer, Schuster, Tischler and Ustaszewski2008). The Central Atlantic and Alpine Tethys entered a drifting stage during Middle Jurassic time. The origin of the mid-oceanic Czorsztyn Ridge was connected with the Bajocian syn-rift geotectonic reorganization (Krobicki & Wierzbowski, Reference Krobicki and Wierzbowski2004, Reference Krobicki and Wierzbowski2009, Reference Krobicki and Wierzbowski2014; Krobicki, Reference Krobicki2009) and is coeval with the spreading phase of the Alpine Tethys (see also Lewandowski et al. Reference Lewandowski, Krobicki, Matyja. and Wierzbowski2005). The occurrence of the mafic (basalt) intrusions in the eastern termination of the Czorsztyn Ridge seems to support the thermal origin of the ridge related to the oceanic spreading (Golonka et al. Reference Golonka, Krobicki, Matyszkiewicz, Olszewska, Ślączka and Słomka2005 b; Krobicki et al. Reference Krobicki, Cieszkowski, Golonka, Kołodziej, Malata, Olszewska, Oszczypko, Tłuczek, Cieszkowski and Golonka2005, Reference Krobicki, Golonka, Malata, Oszczypko, Słaby and Słomka2006, Reference Krobicki, Oszczypko, Salata, Golonka, Németh and Plašienka2008, Reference Krobicki and Wierzbowski2014 Reference Krobicki, Feldman-Olszewska, Iwańczuk, Hnylko, Bábek, Grygar and Uličný a ,Reference Krobicki, Hnylko, Feldman-Olszewska, Iwańczuk, Roch, Pais, Kullberg and Finney b ; Oszczypko et al. Reference Oszczypko, Ślączka, Oszczypko-Clowes and Olszewska2015; Hnylko et al. Reference Hnylko, Krobicki, Feldman-Olszewska and Iwańczuk2015). The palaeogeographic position of the Alpine Tethys was depicted in our paper (Golonka et al. Reference Golonka, Krobicki, Waśkowska, Cieszkowski and Ślączka2015, in fig. 2). It displays two plates, North European and Inner Carpathian (ALCAPA), divided by an oceanic realm, which contains two basins divided by a ridge. The southeastern basin was named the Złatne Basin (Fig. 3). This term has a long story and was used originally several dozen years ago (firstly by Sikora, Reference Sikora1971, Reference Sikora and Maheľ1974), and later was almost completely ignored (Birkenmajer, Reference Birkenmajer1979, Reference Birkenmajer1986). However, it was repeated many times in the twenty-first century, even in a textbook about the geology of Europe, where one of our colleagues involved in this discussion (JM) was our co-author (Pieńkowski et al. Reference Pieńkowski, Schudack, Bosák, Enay, Feldman-Olszewska, Golonka, Gutowski, Herngreen, Jordan, Krobicki, Lathuiliere, Leinfelder, Michalík, Mönnig, Noe-Nygaard, Pálfy, Pint, Rasser, Reisdorf, Schmid, Schweigert, Surlyk, Wetzel, Wong and McCann2008). Another commenting colleague (RA) was also the co-author of a paper applying this term (Krobicki, Aubrecht & Golonka, Reference Krobicki, Aubrecht, Golonka, Golonka and Lewandowski2003; Golonka et al. Reference Golonka, Aleksandrowski, Aubrecht, Chowaniec, Chrustek, Cieszkowski, Florek, Gawęda, Jarosiński, Kępińska, Krobicki, Lefeld, Lewandowski, Marko, Michalik, Oszczypko, Picha, Potfaj, Słaby, Ślączka, Stefaniuk, Uchman and Żelaźniewicz2005a ) (see Fig. 4). This unit/zone was first palaeogeographically depicted in Publications of the Institute of Geophysics Polish Academy of Sciences (Krobicki, Aubrecht & Golonka, Reference Krobicki, Aubrecht, Golonka, Golonka and Lewandowski2003; Oszczypko & Golonka, Reference Oszczypko, Golonka, Golonka and Lewandowski2003, fig. 19). Generally, according to these references, the Złatne Unit is both tectonically and palaeogeographically equivalent to the so-called ultra-Pieniny Succession, created by Birkenmajer (Reference Birkenmajer1986) and occupying the axial part of the Pieniny Klippen Basin. The southeastern basin between the Czorsztyn Ridge and Inner Carpathian basin is known in Slovak literature as Vahicum or Vahic (e.g. Mahel’, Reference Mahel’1981; Plašienka, Reference Plašienka2012). We prefer the older name (Złatne Unit), assigned by Sikora (Reference Sikora1971), because Mahel’ (Reference Mahel’1981) introduced that name a few years later. We also do not like the term Vahicum/Vahic, because it implies the asymmetric arrangement of the PKB Basin and limits this basin to slope facies. This asymmetric view was derived from Birkenmajer's (Reference Birkenmajer1963) opinion about continental crust below the PKB successions (Oravicum in Slovak papers, e.g. Plašienka, Reference Plašienka2012; Plašienka & Soták, Reference Plašienka and Sotak2015). However, there is no single piece of cartographic evidence supporting this point of view. In addition, seismic surveys do not show any crustal element within the PKB structure (Sikora et al. Reference Sikora, Borysławski, Cieszkowski and Gucik1980; Bielik et al. Reference Bielik, Šefara, Kováč, Bezák and Plašienka2004 and unpub. reports). The connection of the Złatne Unit with other, more southern (in recent coordinates), successions/palaeofacies zones (like Klape and/or Kostelec, Manín) is still enigmatic. We have similar trouble with the multiplication of ‘local’ successions, within the PKB structure, both in the Slovakian part of this region (especially in the western part: Fodorka, Orava, Streženice, Drietoma/Bošáca, Nižná, Stupné, Chotúč, Hoština, Dúbravka, Michalova Hora, Mariková: see Mišík, Reference Mišík1997 and literature cited therein; Plašienka & Mikuš, Reference Plašienka and Mikuš2010) and the Ukrainian one (Svalyava, Tissalo, etc). We strongly support the megaregional palaeogeographic picture with one Złatne Basin. Within this basin we can distinguish an axial cone (deep water during Jurassic–Early Cretaceous times), as well as northwestern and southeastern slopes (see also Golonka & Krobicki, Reference Golonka and Krobicki2001, Reference Golonka and Krobicki2004). The rocks deposited on the northwestern slopes constitute the main components of the PKB klippen. The Czorsztyn, Niedzica, Czertezik, Branisko and Pieniny successions (e.g. Birkenmajer, Reference Birkenmajer1977, Reference Birkenmajer1986 with some modifications; Krobicki & Wierzbowski, Reference Krobicki and Wierzbowski2004, Reference Krobicki and Wierzbowski2009; Wierzbowski et al. Reference Wierzbowski, Aubrecht, Krobicki, Matyja and Schlögl2004) represent these components. The palaeogeographic position of the rocks deposited on the southeastern slope is more problematic. We depicted the Klape Succession on this slope and the Manín Succession as a piggy-back sub-basin on the Inner Carpathian margin (Fig. 3). The position of this and other mentioned successions is still not clear and requires additional research. Therefore, we postulate to maintain the broad term Złatne Basin, maintaining perhaps the term Pieniny Sub-basin, which refers to the slope facies (Fig. 3).

Figure 3.

Palaeogeography of the Alpine Tethys during Albian time, plate position at 112. From Oszczypko & Golonka (Reference Oszczypko, Golonka, Golonka and Lewandowski2003)

Figure 4.

Distribution of the Neogene andesite intrusions in the Pieniny Klippen Belt and Magura Nappe in the vicinity of Czorsztyn, Krościenko and Szczawnica. The position of the Haligovce olistolith is also shown. From Golonka et al. (Reference Golonka, Aleksandrowski, Aubrecht, Chowaniec, Chrustek, Cieszkowski, Florek, Gawęda, Jarosiński, Kępińska, Krobicki, Lefeld, Lewandowski, Marko, Michalik, Oszczypko, Picha, Potfaj, Słaby, Ślączka, Stefaniuk, Uchman and Żelaźniewicz2005a ).

The northeastern basin within the Alpine Tethys was the subject of detailed studies by Oszczypko et al. (Reference Oszczypko, Ślączka, Oszczypko-Clowes and Olszewska2015). They described the tectonic slices of the Magura Succession incorporated into the Polish PKB and known as the Hulina Succession/Unit (Sikora, Reference Sikora1971; Golonka & Sikora, Reference Golonka and Sikora1981) or Grajcarek Unit (Birkenmajer, Reference Birkenmajer1977, Reference Birkenmajer1986). The Šariš and Falklovka units distinguished by Plašienka & Mikuš (Reference Plašienka and Mikuš2010) and Plašienka (Reference Plašienka2012) are equivalents of these slices within the Slovakian PKB. They all originated within the Magura Basin. Therefore, we depicted all tectonic units existing within the Outer Carpathian Flysch in the investigated area as Cretaceous and Palaeogene of the Magura Basin (Golonka et al. Reference Golonka, Krobicki, Waśkowska, Cieszkowski and Ślączka2015, fig. 3). It is possible to distinguish the Grajcarek and Krynica units in the detailed tectonic map. The name Hulina (Sikora, Reference Sikora1971) is older, but Grajcarek is better established (e.g. Oszczypko & Golonka, Reference Oszczypko, Golonka, Golonka and Lewandowski2003). We do not see any advantages in producing new names such as Šariš. This causes only more confusion for the reader not familiar with the peculiarities of correlation across the state borders.

We are a little bit surprised about the comments on the Haligovce olistoliths. Their position has been the subject of numerous presentations at conferences in Poland and Slovakia since 2004.

Again, one of our commenting colleagues (RA) was also the co-author of a paper which included a map with the position of the Haligovce olistoliths (Golonka, Krobicki & Tłuczek, Reference Golonka, Krobicki, Tłuczek, Doktor and Waśkowska-Oliwa2005).

Our colleague's figure 1 shows the Cretaceous and Palaeogene flysch south and north of the Haligovce Klippen. This is a cartographic fact. The deep structure of this klippen is a conjecture not supported by any evidence. Our colleagues even marked the Myjava-Hricov group with olistoliths. Their cross-section corresponds very well to our figure 5 in Golonka et al. (Reference Golonka, Krobicki, Waśkowska, Cieszkowski and Ślączka2015). We also, previously, called these sediments the Złatne-Myjava flysch (Golonka et al. Reference Golonka, Aleksandrowski, Aubrecht, Chowaniec, Chrustek, Cieszkowski, Florek, Gawęda, Jarosiński, Kępińska, Krobicki, Lefeld, Lewandowski, Marko, Michalik, Oszczypko, Picha, Potfaj, Słaby, Ślączka, Stefaniuk, Uchman and Żelaźniewicz2005a ; see also Oszczypko et al. Reference Oszczypko, Ślączka, Oszczypko-Clowes and Olszewska2015). In our paper (Golonka et al. Reference Golonka, Krobicki, Matyszkiewicz, Olszewska, Ślączka and Słomka2005 b), we stated: ‘In the southern part of the Outer Carpathian realm, along the margin of the Złatne forearc basin, narrow carbonate platforms originated during the Paleocene. Within these platforms, complex reef systems developed (Köhler, Salaj & Buček, Reference Köhler, Salaj and Buček1993). Large fragments of these reefs occur in the Haligovce – Vel'ký Lipník area in the Pieniny Klippen Belt in Slovakia and in the Vah river area (Samuel, Borza & Köhler, Reference Samuel, Borza and Köhler1972), forming olistoliths within the flysch deposits of the Žilina Formation (Potfaj, Reference Potfaj, Vozár, Vojtko and Sliva2002). The organogenic limestones are built of Scleractinia corals together with Corallinaceae algae (genera Lithothamnium, Lithophyllum, Arhaeolithothamnium, Paleothamnium, Ethelia), bryozoa, sponges, brachiopods, gastropods and foraminifers. Reefal facies, as well as fore-reef and back-reef assemblages could be distinguished here. The smaller fragments of the organogenic Paleocene limestones with numerous red Corallinaceae algae have been found in the Paleocene flysch deposits of Jarmuta and Szczawnica Formations in the southern part of the Magura Unit (Golonka, Reference Golonka1974; Burtan, Chowaniec & Golonka, Reference Burtan, Chowaniec and Golonka1984). The huge olistoliths built of Mesozoic sequences, near the Haligovce village (Haligovce klippe) are also related to the flysch of Žilina Formation deposited in the fore-arc Zlatne unit.’ Certainly, these Kambühel limestones were deposited in a shallow-water environment. However, they are not ‘in situ’, but rather redeposited into flysch sequences. Our Slovak colleagues also accused us of ‘referring only to the current Polish literature as if these reefs were newly recognized, although they were thoroughly described almost half a century ago (e.g. Scheibner, Reference Scheibner1968) and then recently by Köhler & Buček (Reference Köhler and Buček2005)’.

We understand such a reaction quite well and usually try to honour all the necessary authors who have contributed in their scientific research. We know perfectly well who is interested in this topic and who discovered and published papers on the Kambühel coral-algal-bearing limestones. In 2004, when we organized some Carpathian conferences focused on Carpathian exotics and their significance in palaeogeographical–geotectonic reconstructions of the Carpathian basins (Krobicki, Reference Krobicki2004), we published a short abstract-text on the Kambühel limestones. Unfortunately, the abstract book of this conference was published almost only in Polish (except some text in English, including by Slovakian geologists, e.g. Ivan, Sýkora & Demko, Reference Ivan, Sýkora, Demko and Krobicki2004). It is worth pointing out that our languages are very similar and it should not constitute a problem to be understood by each other. Readers can find in this abstract book several abstracts on such topics, including the one about the Paleocene Kambühel reef limestones full of corals and algae. In translation, for non-Slav people, some parts of our abstract were as follows (Krobicki et al. Reference Krobicki, Golonka, Kołodziej, Olszewska, Oszczypko, Słomka, Tragelehn, Wieczorek and Krobicki2004, p. 54): ‘One of the effects of this process was the origin of the Złatne fore-arc basin (Myjava-Klape), which was filled by a wide spectrum of deep- and shallow-water clastic deposits. Simultaneously, in the shallowest part of this basin, Paleocene reefs originated (Mišík & Zelman, Reference Mišík and Zelman1959; Andrusov, Reference Andrusov1969; Scheibner, Reference Scheibner1968; Samuel, Borza & Köhler, Reference Samuel, Borza and Köhler1972; Köhler, Salaj & Buček, Reference Köhler, Salaj and Buček1993). Recently, isolated occurrences of these can be found in the Eastern Alps (Kambühel vicinity near Ternitz in Austria – Kambühel limestones stratotype – Tollmann, 1976; Faupl, Pober & Wagreich, Reference Faupl, Pober, Wagreich, Flügel and Faupl1987; H. Tragelehn, unpub. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Erlangen, 1996; Müller, Reference Müller2004) through western Slovakia (Mišík & Zelman, Reference Mišík and Zelman1959; Scheibner, Reference Scheibner1968; Köhler, Salaj & Buček, Reference Köhler, Salaj and Buček1993) up to Haligovce (Scheibner, Reference Scheibner1968; Potfaj, Reference Potfaj, Vozár, Vojtko and Sliva2002). Identical limestones, and exotics as well, have been determined within the Strihov and Proč conglomerates of western Slovakia (Mišík, Sýkora & Jablonský, Reference Mišík, Sýkora and Jablonský1991; Mišík et al. Reference Mišík, Sýkora, Mock and Jablonský1991)’. It can be seen that we fully recognized and honoured the earlier scientists’ work, and we cited them completely. However, the paper of Köhler & Buček (Reference Köhler and Buček2005) was published one year later, and everyone can check who was cited in this paper. Additionally, we mentioned Köhler, Salaj & Buček's (Reference Köhler, Salaj and Buček1993) paper on the next page (see Golonka et al. Reference Golonka, Krobicki, Waśkowska, Cieszkowski and Ślączka2015, p. 278).

The commenting authors’ cross-sections in their figure 2 clearly indicate the relationship between the Mariková Klippe and the Jarmuta-Proč Formation. The well-mapped olistoliths of the PKB in Poland are embedded in the Jarmuta Formation. Birkenmajer & Gedl (Reference Birkenmajer and Gedl2012) stated ‘Olistoliths, up to c. 100 m large. . . are well recognizable in a 250–350 m wide belt of the Jarmuta Formation, between the Biały Dunajec River in the east and the Mały Rogoźnik (Skrzypny) stream in the west’. It is easy to distinguish the relatively small olistoliths. It is a far more difficult to recognize the bigger ones. ‘Very large blocks could slide independently into the basin with no easily distinguishable matrix. The huge olistoliths of areas that sometimes exceed several square kilometers were distinguished as olistoplaques. Usually, they represent frontal fragments of the advancing nappe that slid down across the surface of the basinal slope, and are, therefore, almost devoid of matrix. In contrast to normal olistoliths they are often built of several different lithostratigraphic units’ (Golonka et al. Reference Golonka, Barmuta, Barmuta, Krobicki, Cieszkowski, Ślączka, Bábek, Grygar and Uličný2014). The Mariková Klippe perhaps belongs to these olistoplaques and it corresponds very well to Salaj's opinion, who suggested that Triassic limestones from the Dolná Mariková vicinity are olistoliths (Salaj, Reference Salaj1995). The age of the matrix is problematic. The commenting authors’ in their figure 2 define the age of the Jarmuta-Proč Formation as Paleocene–Ypresian (Eocene). We used the Eocene age in our paper as well. The Jarmuta Formation is defined in Poland as Maastrichtian–Paleocene in age (e.g. Birkenmajer et al. Reference Birkenmajer, Dudziak, Jednorowska and Kutyba1987; Birkenmajer & Dudziak, Reference Birkenmajer and Dudziak1991; Oszczypko et al. Reference Oszczypko, Ślączka, Oszczypko-Clowes and Olszewska2015). The stratigraphy of the Magura deposits in the vicinity of the Mariková Klippe perhaps requires further investigation. The position of the Grajcarek-Šariš unit within the PKB was discussed earlier. In addition, the remarks about the Złatne Basin apply to the Považie area. The Klape flysch in our opinion belongs to the Złatne Basin. Of course, the southeastern slope of this basin constitutes the margin of the Inner/Central Carpathians. As such, it is possible to include the Klape Unit in the Central Carpathian units. The maps of this area (Mello, Reference Mello2005) indicate that the Klape Unit belongs to the structures of the PKB. It is perhaps worth mentioning that the late Wacław Sikora (in Golonka & Sikora, Reference Golonka and Sikora1981) stated that the Trawne Beds, Złatne Succession are identical to the Manin flysch. This identification was confirmed by the Manin flysch experts A. Began and J. Haško during field trips.

In conclusion, we still believe that the olistoliths within the PKB require further investigation, contrary to our Slovak colleagues’ statement ‘that this area was studied in detail by numerous authors (see the citations above) who have already performed the necessary investigations and provided a wealth of data’. It is always possible to interpret the same data differently. In addition, introducing different methods of investigation, such as seismic surveys, can profoundly supplement the surface field observations.

Our Slovak colleagues present a lot of interesting observations in their comments. Especially valuable, was the section distinguishing the several different types and settings of olistoliths. We are confident that we can discuss the question and unresolved problems during common field trips and publish together many interesting papers. We should avoid the situation from the past, when the same formations, basins or tectonic units obtained different names in different countries.