We welcome the discussion by Jurewicz et al. (2020) whose main criticism focused on the fact that ‘the authors’ main conclusions contradict the results of previous studies’. However, this statement refers perhaps to the geological setting since we are not aware of any previous studies providing seismic imaging of mélanges in the Pieniny Klippen Belt (PKB). We did not consider the critical remarks by Plašienka et al. (2017), because we believe that sufficient answers were provided by Golonka et al. (2017). We are grateful to Jurewicz et al. (2020) for pointing out the erroneous term ‘tectonic olistolith' that we will correct it in future work. The discussion is based on two sets of problems: regional geology and interpretations of seismic data.

Regional geology issues

The first set of regional geology remarks concerns the position and age of folding and thrusting of the Złatne Unit, as well as the relationship between the PKB, Central and Outer Carpathians. Sikora (1971) introduced the Złatne Succession and the Złatne Basin, which were redefined by Golonka and Krobicki (2004), using the modern paleogeographic approach. This basin was part of the Alpine Tethys, which formed during Jurassic times (Hsü 1975; Schmid et al. 2008). The Magura Basin constituted another part of the Alpine Tethys. These two basins were separated by the Czorsztyn Ridge. The Alpine Tethys was located between the Central Carpathian and North European plates (Golonka et al. 2018b). The accretionary prism formed as a result of subduction of the PKB basins under the Central Carpathian Plate (Golonka et al. 2015) during Late Cretaceous times. The movement of this plate continued until the middle Miocene, when nappes of the PKB and Outer Carpathians were finally formed (Golonka et al. 2019a, b). Contrary to some of the earlier studies (Scheibner, 1968; …