Comment on “Geochemistry, petrogenesis and tectonic setting of the Samothraki mafic suite, NE Greece: Trace-element, isotopic and zircon age constraints” by N. Koglin, D. Kostopoulos & T. Reischmann [Tectonophysics 473, 53–68 (doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2008.10.

The work by Koglin et al. (Koglin, N., Kostopoulos, D., Reichmann, T., 2009. Geochemistry, petrogenesis and tectonic setting of the Samothraki mafic suite, NE Greece: Trace-element, isotopic and zircon age constraints. Tectonophysics 473, 53–68. doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2008.10.028), where the authors have proposed to nullify the scenario presented by Bonev and Stampfli (Bonev, N., Stampfli, G., 2008. Petrology, geochemistry and geodynamic implications of Jurassic island arc magmatism as revealed by mafic volcanic rocks in the Mesozoic low-grade sequence, eastern Rhodope, Bulgaria. Lithos 100, 210–233) is here put under discussion. The arguments for this proposal are reviewed in the light of available stratigraphic and radiometric age constraints, geochemical signature and tectonics of highly relevant Jurassic ophiolitic suites occurring immediately north of the Samothraki mafic suite. Our conclusion is that the weak arguments and the lack of knowledge on the relevant constraints from the regional geologic information make inconsistent the proposal and the model of these authors.