Reply to the Discussion by Rose of Phelps et al. (2014) ‘Oceanographic and eustatic control of carbonate platform evolution and sequence stratigraphy on the Cretaceous (Valanginian–Campanian) passive margin,northern Gulf of Mexico’, Sedimentology, 61, 461–496

Discussion points raised by Rose ( 2016 ) concentrate on late Albian stratigraphic relationships between formations of the East Texas Basin and the San Marcos Arch of the Comanche Platform in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Criticisms of Phelps et al. (2014) regarding stratigraphic nomenclature, palaeogeography and regional lithostratigraphic correlations generally focus on interpretive aspects of the study or do not account for the full scope of published information. Revisions to the top Aptian–Albian Supersequence boundary by Rose are incompatible with the relative location of a subaerial unconformity, as well as deepening lithofacies trends and retrogradational stratigraphic patterns below the interpreted boundary. Rose's placement of the top Aptian–Albian Supersequence boundary precisely at the Albian–Cenomanian stage boundary also implies ca 1·4 Ma of diachroneity in second order sea‐level patterns between the northern Gulf of Mexico and other documented global sedimentary basins.