Reply to Narkiewicz (2017) comment on “Thermal evolution of Paleozoic successions of the Holy Cross Mountains (Poland)”

In this paper we reply to the criticisms advanced by Narkiewicz (2017) on the paper by Schito et al.
(2017). We clarify the issues related to the stratigraphic and thermal maturity constraints used for
reconstructing burial and thermal models of the two blocks of the Holy Cross Mountains.
We also show how geological evidences brought by Narkiewicz (2017) as a proof of elevated Variscan
heat flow are not conclusive or at least suggest the occurence of a localized thermal anomaly only along
the area of the Holy Cross Fault.
In the end, we performed new burial and thermal models in the Kielce region demonstrating that
stratigraphic thickness variations between Schito et al. (2017) and Narkiewicz et al. (2010) produce only
negligible differences in levels of thermal maturity of Paleozoic rocks. In addition, we outline that levels
of thermal maturity for Silurian rocks can be matched only by using constant heat flow values through
the Paleozoic and point to a decisive role for the absence of regional high Variscan heat flow in the area.

Narkiewicz, M., 2017. Comment on a paper by Schito et al. (2017)
“Thermal evolution of Paleozoic successions of the Holy Cross Mountains (Poland)”. Mar.Petrol. Geol. (in press), Corrected Proof https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2017.02.016