Discussion Discussion of “Magnetostratigraphic confirmation of a much faster tempo for sea-level change for the Middle Triassic Latemar platform carbonates” by D.V. Kent, G. Muttoni and P. Brack [Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 228 (2004), 369–377] Linda A. Hinnov Morton K. Blaustein Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA Received 31 January 2005; received in revised form 30 December 2005; accepted 3 January 2006 Available online 13 February 2006 Editor: E. Boyle Abstract Kent et al. report on new magnetostratigraphic data obtained from the Middle Triassic Latemar carbonate platform (Dolomites, Italy). The result is important because it addresses the so-called dLatemar controversy,' and appears to corroborate radioisotope- dated ash beds in the Latemar platform indicating that the buildup must have taken place in 2–4 million years, but not the 9–12 million years of Milankovitch forcing inferred from cyclostratigraphic analyses. Unfortunately, Kent et al. omit basic information that runs contrary to the conclusion that the Latemar carbonates have yielded a primary paleomagnetic signal. Here, the missing details are supplied by “zooming in" on the chronostratigraphic interval that was investigated. In sum, Kent et al.'s results do not confirm a “faster tempo for sea level change" for the Latemar as much as raise questions about the magnetization of these carbonate rocks. There are also shortcomings in Kent et al.'s reappraisal of the cyclic content of the Cimon del Latemar (CDL) series that need clarification. Finally, the Latemar controversy is examined in the context of the distribution of time in Middle Triassic stratigraphy of the Dolomites. © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Triassic; Dolomites; Latemar; magnetostratigraphy; cyclostratigraphy 1. The case for magnetostratigraphic correlation Fig. 1 shows that at high resolution, the proposed Latemar magnetostratigraphy of Kent et al. [1] conflicts with two other magnetostratigraphies from nearby basinal Buchenstein beds [7,8]. According to the mag- netostratigraphy at Seceda (Chron SC1r), the lower half of the Latemar (in the Reitzi Zone) should have reversed polarity. This is not the case, and the reversal that straddles the Tc ash bed at Frötschbach (Chron F1n.1r), which projects into the Latemar's UCF, is also missing. Major misalignments are also evident between the two basinal magnetostratigraphies. F1n.1r may corre- spond to SC1r, but it is only ca. 1 m thick. Tc occurs above SC1r, but is within F1n.1r (Fig. 4 in [7] and Fig. 6 in [8]), which suggests that the two chrons are not related. The normal event within SC1r may correspond to F1n.1n, but this can only be resolved by recovering polarity information from the lowermost beds (i.e., the Plattenkalke) (Fig. 1, “?” in Column 7) and/or defining Earth and Planetary Science Letters 243 (2006) 841 – 846 www.elsevier.com/locate/epsl E-mail address: hinnov@jhu.edu. 0012-821X/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2006.01.013