Reply to the comment on “First records of syn-diagenetic non-tectonic folding in Quaternary thermogene travertines caused by hydrothermal incremental veining” by Billi et alii

In our previous paper (Billi et al., 2017), using field geological observations, U-Th dating, and stable isotope analyses, we studied two deposits of Pleistocene thermogene travertines from Tuscany in central Italy. We concluded our study (1) warning that the common stratigraphic concept of travertine being a sedimentary succession with age younging from bottom to top is not always correct, (2) demonstrating that CaCO3mineralization and veins can develop within the travertines after their formation with this syn-diagenetic process being able to modify the continuous bottom-up age evolution, and (3) showing that this post-depositional mineralization-veining process can not only modify the temporal succession but also deform and change the initial depositional travertine structure and its petrophysical properties. These conclusions could potentially make the interpretation of a travertine series more difficult than commonly thought. Alcicek et alii questioned our conclusions claiming that the travertine structures that we observed in Tuscany and interpreted as post-depositional features should have been interpreted, in analogy to similar structures from travertines elsewhere, as primary structures. Although we recognize, as already thoroughly stated in Billi et al. (2017), that the travertine depositional/post-depositional processes generally require further studies, we reaffirm the validity of our original interpretation at least for the structures analyzed in our previous paper. We, therefore, counter all criticisms by Alcicek et alii and conclude by indicating the way forward to further explore the depositional and post-depositional processes of thermogene travertines.