Asunto: open letter to SWG
Para: ben@ginras.ru, cjcollom@shaw.ca, asg@nhm.ac.uk, Jaume.Gallemi@uab.es, gardin@ccr.jussieu.fr, JHaggart@nrcan.gc.ca, john.jagt@maastricht.nl, claudia@indiana.edu, kauffman@indiana.edu, lkopaev@geol.msu.ru, gpplapam@lg.ehu.es, j.lees@ucl.ac.uk, Gregori.Lopez@uab.es, Ricard.Martinez@uab.es, melinte@geoecomar.ro, Christian.Neumann@MUSEUM.HU-Berlin.de, d.peryt@twarda.pan.pl, mrose.petrizzo@unimi.it, JosepMaria.Pons@uab.es, Isabella.Premoli@unimi.it, s.toshimitsu@aist.go.jp, Michael.wagreich@univie.ac.at, jim.kennedy@oum.ox.ac.uk, haydonbailey@btconnect.com, chrisjwood@btopenworld.com, rory.mortimore@btinternet.com, psikora@egi.utah.edu
De: "Ireneusz Walaszczyk" <i.walaszczyk@uw.edu.pl>
Fecha: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:10:50 +0100

Dear Colleagues,

Inserted below please find my comments to the letter of Prof. M. Lamolda, which has been sent by him to the International Commission on Stratigraphy, and then, some days before Christmas, sent out to all of you. Although the letter contained the critics of the Subcommission, very often it was addressed personally to me; that is why my comments. Because of the Christmas - New Year time I am sending the letter now.

As the direct cause of the letter of Prof. M. Lamolda seemed to be the objections to his report on the Olazagutia section and to the Olazagutia section itself I summarized all of them in a separate document to show how serious they are. These objections were the only reason for the Subcommission trying to postpone the voting. The document is attached as a word file to this message.

With all best wishes for 2008
Irek Walaszczyk

OPEN LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SANTONIAN WORKING GROUP

The content of the letter to the International Commission on Stratigraphy sent out by Professor Marcos Lamolda, the chair of the Santonian Working Group, exemplifies a type of approach to the stratotype selection process that should not take place. Namely, pushing a favoured candidate section at any cost. The goal of a Working Group is to find, suggest, and select the best candidate sections available and to report on them in detail, ideally as papers published in peer-reviewed journals. It is then the role of the chair to prepare an entirely objective report on the sections, including a summary of the points for and against individual sections, and to put the final selection to a vote of the members of the Working Group. It is not the role of the chair to favour any one candidate section or to seek to influence the members in their choice.

Prof. Lamolda is actively involved in research on the Olazagutia section, and his report concerning the selection of the Santonian GSSP clearly favoured this section over the Ten Mile Creek section to such an extent that members who knew neither section would be persuaded to vote for the former. However, as can be seen from the comments sent to the Chair by a number of WG members, all of whom have been actively involved in work on the base of the Santonian, there are several serious objections to the Olazagutia section. The suggested postponing of the vote, which was also supported by Prof. Premoli-Silva, would thus have been the best solution.

Prof. M. Lamolda is probably justified in charging the officials of the Subcommission with inadequate communication and this will need to be addressed in future. However, he has quite unjustifiably taken any critical comment on his favoured Olazagutia section as a personal attack on him. The objection directed at me (as the then Assistant Editor of the journal) that the multi-author paper in Acta Geologica Polonica on the integrated stratigraphy of the candidate Ten Mile Creek section was published too fast and (by implication) without adequate peer review is ridiculous; both reviewers provided detailed comprehensive reviews which considerably improved the final version of the paper. The fact that the paper was published quickly is merely a reflection of an efficient editorial process. In any case, surely it was the intention expressed at both Bilbao and the International Cretaceous Symposium in Neuchatel in 2005 that the reports on Seaford Head and the two candidate GSSP sections were to be completed and published as soon as possible.

It is incorrect to state that it was agreed at the Bilbao Santonian Working Group meeting that Olazagutia would be the favoured candidate section, there being too many points against Ten Mile Creek for it be considered seriously. In fact, it was agreed that the Chalk section at Seaford Head, UK, would no longer be regarded as a candidate Santonian GSSP section, but merely as an international reference section, and that detailed reports would be prepared on both it and the remaining candidate sections, Olazagutia and Ten Mile Creek. In the stage boundary discussion on the last day of the Neuchatel Symposium in 2005, there was further discussion of the two candidate sections agreed at Bilbao, when serious criticism of the Olazagutia section was expressed, even by some of the Spanish geologists present. At no point was it ever stated that Olazagutia was the favoured candidate section. It is perhaps unfortunate that Prof. Lamolda was not present at this Symposium and that he was not subsequently informed that active work was in progress on the Ten Mile Creek section.

The discussion among some WG members which started after the chair's report and voting papers were sent out was caused mainly by the non-objective comments in the report on the Olazagutia and Ten Mile Creek sections; a number of statements in the report are inaccurate, misleading or even incorrect. I joined in this discussion at a very late stage for two reasons. Firstly, because of being away from Poland on fieldwork, I was not able to read the report until November [Prof. Lamolda having refused to send it to me it by e-mail]. Secondly, because I was myself one of the authors of the paper on the Ten Mile Creek section, I initially deliberately stood outside the discussion, in order that there should be no suggestion that I was trying to influence the vote in favour of the American section. Nevertheless, I eventually fully supported, and added my name to, the report prepared by Chris Wood at the instigation of Prof. Premoli-Silva, this being intended as an appendix to the chair's report to the Commission on the result of the vote.

There are a number of statements, particularly in the post attached by Prof. Lamolda to his letter, which refer personally to me; I do not want to comment on these statements, because this is not a forum for personal polemic; these are either his personal feelings (and he has every right to them) or merely imputations.

Irek Walaszczyk