Reply to the comment on “Sea-level control on facies architecture in the Cenomanian–Coniacian Apulian margin (Western Tethys): A record of glacio-eustatic fluctuations during the Cretaceous greenhouse?” by S. Galeotti, G. Rusciadelli, M. Sprovieri, L. Lan

Parente et al. (2010) (hereafter Petal10) (Comment on “Sea-level control on facies architecture in the Cenomanian–Coniacian Apulian margin (Western Tethys): A record of glacio-eustatic fluctuations during the Cretaceous greenhouse?” by S. Galeotti, G. Rusciadelli, M. Sprovieri, L. Lanci, A. Gaudio and S. Pekar [Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 276 (2009) 196–205], Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol, 2010–this issue) discuss our contribution to the correlation of eustatic sea-level changes observed in the Cenomanian–Coniacian Apulian margin (Western Tethys) to reference records of sea-level fluctuation and the methods implied in constructing such correlation. Their conclusions stem from a fundamental misinterpretation of the method used in our study, particularly as far as the approach used to put the observed sequences, which are interpreted to reflect global sea-level changes, into context. In their comment, Petal10 extensively discuss the pitfalls implied in calibrating records and events in carbonate platform settings to a standard chronostratigraphy on the basis of biostratigraphy. This approach would be an obvious element of concern, but does not form the basis of the calibration in our study, which is based on the following procedure: 1. Biostratigraphy and event stratigraphy-based correlation – not calibration – of the events observed in the carbonate platform to the adjacent base-of-slope Monte Turno record; 2. Calibration of the Monte Turno bio- and chemostratigraphic record to reference (glacio)eustatic and chemostratigraphic records.