Correspondence Reply to comments by A. Krohe and A.P. Willner on “Structural evolution of the central part of the Krus ˇne ´ Hory (Erzgebirge) Mountains in the Czech Republic—evidence for changing stress regime during Variscan compression” [Journal of Structural Geology 23 (2001) 1373 – 1392] q Jir ˇı ´ Konopa ´sek a, * , Karel Schulmann b , Ondrej Lexa b a Institut fu ¨r Geowissenschaften—Tektonophysik, Universita ¨t Mainz, Becherweg 21, 55099 Mainz, Germany b Charles University, Institute of Petrology and Structural Geology, Faculty of Science, Albertov 6, 128 43, Praha 2, Czech Republic Received 25 November 2001; accepted 10 May 2002 We thank Alexander Krohe and Arne Willner (2002) for starting a discussion about the structural evolution of the Erzgebirge. In their contribution, the authors discuss correlation of separate tectonic units in the central Erzgebirge, tectonic mechanisms responsible for observed superimposed folding, the tectonic position of eclogite- facies rocks, and the role of extension in the exhumation of the high-pressure units. Moreover, they address several important issues of Saxothuringian geology, such as the decreasing metamorphic conditions towards the west, and the status of the HP/HT and of UHP metamorphism in the Erzgebirge. Although we are aware that our observations have important implications for the tectonic evolution of the eastern part of the Saxothuringian domain, the later points in the discussion are not related to our paper which only aims to interpret the observed metamorphic and structural evolution of the Czech part of the central Erzgebirge. Thus, our reply will only address those issues of the discussion which are directly related to our work. The critical remarks in the whole discussion are based on the assumption that the Saxothuringian basement reveals metamorphic and structural characteristics of a core complex with high-pressure rocks in the deepest structural position. With this philosophy in mind, the exhumation of deepest HP rocks can only be explained using the concept of vertical rebound controlled by extensional tectonics. We do not want to challenge the results of Krohe (1996, 1998) and Willner et al. (2000) coming from other parts of the Saxothuringian domain, because the aim of our paper (Konopa ´sek et al., 2001) was to document inversion of metamorphic zones connected with the development of a thrust-related fabric in the eastern Erzgebirge. 1. The Lower Crystalline nappe vs. the Mu ¨ nchberg nappe Obviously, there is a substantial misinterpretation of the Introduction section in the discussed paper. We are certainly not saying that the Lower Crystalline nappe defined by us should be correlated with the Mu ¨nchberg, Frankenberg and Wildenfels klippens. The only reason for mentioning these structures was to show that in the western Erzgebirge, obvious sharp change in metamorphic conditions allows easy definition of the allochthonous bodies. This is not the case in the central Erzgebirge where all the exposed lithologies show evidence for medium- to high-temperature metamorphism. Careful reading of the paper will reveal that the definition of the orthogneiss nappe overlying the parautochthonous metasedimentary sequence is not the result of a presupposed correlation of the eastern and western Erzgebirge, but the summary of published meta- morphic, and presented structural data (see Sections 3 and 4 in the discussed paper). We are aware of the fact that the Mu ¨nchberg eclogites show much higher ages of the HP metamorphism compared with those of the Erzgebirge eclogites. On the other hand, underlying deformed Carbon- iferous sediments suggest that final emplacement of the 0191-8141/03/$ - see front matter q 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0191-8141(02)00063-9 Journal of Structural Geology 25 (2003) 1005–1007 www.elsevier.com/locate/jstrugeo q PII of original article S0191-8141(01)00003-7 PII of Comment article S0191-8141(02)00062-7. * Corresponding author.