To the Executive Editor of Geochimica and Cosmochimica Acta F.A. Podosek To the Associate Editor T. Lowenstein

Discussion of "Boron isotope geochemistry of Paleozoic brachiopod calcite: Implications for a secular change in the boron isotope geochemistry of seawater over the Phanerozoic" by Joachimski et al. 2005 in Geochimica and Cosmochimica Acta 69, 16, 4035-4044.

Joachimski et al. (2005) report data on the pH or boron isotope composition of Permian oceans obtained from the analysis of samples extracted from eight brachiopod specimens, five of which were provided by L. Angiolini from the collection of the paleontological museum housed at the Department of Earth Sciences "A. Desio" of the University of Milan. A subsequent procrastinated lack of intention by M.M. Joachimski to share his results with L. Angiolini (despite an original informal scientific collaboration agreement) resulted in a publication (Joachimski et al., 2005) replete with errors concerning the stratigraphic position of the specimens, their taxonomic attribution, and diagenetic history. In brief, the five specimens stem from three different stratigraphic levels of a 60-metres thick section that contains at least one unconformity between OL15 and OL14 (Saiwan type-section, Haushi-Huqf, Oman. Angiolini et al. 1997, 2003, 2004). Of these samples, OL14 is not late Sakmarian in age, as reported by Joachimski et al. (2005, Tab. 1, 2), but it is older by about 2 Ma. straddling the Tastubian-Sterlitamakian boundary; therefore, its isotope values should be kept separate from those of OL15 and OL18, which are late Sakmarian in age and it should be considered that the late Sakmarian spans at least 5 million of years. Moreover, the specimens OL14 and OL15-1 are not Neospirifer sp. (as stated by Joachimski et al., 2005, Tab. 1), but taxa belonging to unrelated families.
Finally, OL14 comes from a stratigraphic horizon characterized by a strong diagenetic overprint and pervaded by celestite cement that may have altered the original isotope composition and have been already described by Angiolini et al. (2003), a paper ignored by Joachimski et al. (2005).
Most of these mistakes derive from the lack of cooperation of M.M. Joachimski, who after having received the Permian material from L. Angiolini never showed her the results and never discussed with her the stratigraphic, taxonomic and diagenetic status of the material, notwithstanding the preliminary informal scientific collaboration agreement. I believe that building such large interpretations on the secular variability of seawater geochemistry over the Phanerozoic based on sparse samples taken without carefully considering their systematic, stratigraphic, and diagenetic context adds nothing but background noise to the scientific signal, besides showing incorrect and impolite behaviour.

Angiolini L., Bucher H., Pillevuit A., Platel J.P., Roger J., Broutin J., Baud A., Marcoux J. & Al Hashmi H. 1997. Early Permian (Sakmarian) brachiopods from Southeastern Oman. Geobios, 30, 3, 379-405.

Angiolini L., Balini M., Garzanti E., Nicora A. & Tintori A. 2003. Gondwanan deglaciation and opening of Neotethys: the Al-Khlata and Saiwan formations of Interior Oman. Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology, 196, 1-2, 99-123.

Angiolini L., Crasquin-Soleau S., Platel J.-P., Roger J., Vachard D., Vaslet D. and Al Husseini M. 2004. Saiwan, Gharif and Khuff formations, Haushi-Huqf Uplift, Oman. In: Carboniferous, Permian and Triassic Arabian Stratigraphy (M. Al-Husseini Ed.). GeoArabia Special Publication, 3, 149-183.

Dear listmembers,

Some days back, Lucia Angiolini posted a letter on the list in which she is complaining on my behaviour and trying to discredit me.

I visited Lucia Angiolini in 2001 in Milano. Lucia was very kind and handed over 50 to 60 Permian brachiopod specimen from different areas. The intention was to work on the oxygen, carbon and boron isotope geochemistry of the shells (as a cooperation). I screened all shells for diagenetic alteration by cathodoluminescence and it turned out that only 5 shells seemed to be well-preserved and potentially could be used for isotope work (Lucia Angiolini was informed on this). The remaining shells were further screened by means of SEM and trace element contents and finally studied for boron isotopes. Since there was no way to publish these data separately, I included the 5 data points in a more comprehensive paper on the boron isotope geochemistry of Paleozoic brachiopods (Joachimski et al. 2005, GCA, 69, 4035-4044). I thanked Lucia in the acknowledgments for providing the shell material. Unfortunately, I did not contact Lucia again before publishing the 5 data points that were measured on her brachiopods and I am sorry for this.

However, I cannot accept the way Lucia Angiolini is trying to discredit me

1) Dr. Angiolini states that the results in the GCA article are “mostly based on her material”: there are 41 values presented for Silurian to Permian brachiopods – only 5 values derive from Lucia’s shells.

2) It is a pure geochemical study with 50% of the paper dealing with geochemical modelling. I did not cite any systematic work since it is really not relevant to this pure geochemical study.

3) Dr Angiolini states that my publication is “replete with errors concerning the stratigraphic position of the specimens, their taxonomic attribution, and diagenetic history”:

- incorrect stratigraphic position of sample OL 14 (not of late Sakmarian age): Fig. 2 in Angiolini et al. 1997 (Geobios 30, 379-405) shows sample OL 14 in the Lower Mb. of the Saiwan Formation dated at the base of the late Sakmarian.

- incorrect taxonomic attribution of sample OL 15-1: two Neospirifer specimen (taxonomically determined by Lucia Angiolini) were investigated and relabelled by me as OL15–1 and OL15–2.

- a major part of the manuscript addresses the problem of the preservation of the studied brachiopod shells.

It is impertinent to state that the manuscript is replete with errors!

Dr. Angiolini’s statement that I am “used to do the same with other researchers” is an incredible and barefaced defamation. How can she know? I am sure that some Devonian brachiopod workers on this list can attest that this not the case. I will not comment on the statement that my data add “nothing but background noise to the scientific signal” since this would end up in an evaluation of the Dr. Angiolini’s understanding of geochemical processes.

I admit that it was a mistake not to contact Dr. Angiolini before publishing the 5 data points measured on her shells and I apologize for this. And I am really unhappy with this unpleasant dispute. But I cannot accept the fact that Lucia Angiolini is trying to discredit me and my work in front of the brachiopod palaeontologist and geochemist community by writing such defaming letters.

Since I am not a member of the brachiopod list, I will appreciate if any further contribution to this dispute could be forwarded to me.

Yours

Michael Joachimski

Dear Christian Emig,

merci beaucoup for posting my reply on your brachiopod list. I have some problems to understand why the problems between Dr. Angiolini and myself initiate a discussion on the integrity of Christophe Lécuyer. If the brachiopod community wants to pillory somebody, it's me to pillory. I am responsible for the publication and I did not ask for "permission" to publish the 5 data points. This was a mistake. I apologized in my reply letter and to Dr. Angiolini earlier in a personal Email.

Concerning the letter to the Editors of Geochim Cosmochim Acta. The letter of Dr. Angiolini to the Editors is not based on scientific flaws but just on emotional feelings. I tried to explain in my reply letter that the scientific accusations are not tenable. No editor of any major journal will accept such a discussion. Nevertheless, it would have been great fun to write the reply.

Most problematic, the brachiopod list is a relatively closed community in which it seems possible to accusate and condemn somebody without giving the person the chance to defend himself. Maybe some colleagues should consider this before initiating further steps concerning this dispute. Fortunately, there are colleagues who think that there are always two sides of a story.

I leave it up to you whether you want to put this on the brachiopod list as well.

bonne weekend

Michael Joachimski

1) I know that in Joachimski et al. (2005, GCA, 69, 4035-4044) 41 data points are shown for the Palaeozoic, of which only 9 concerns the Permian. In my letters I clearly stated that the PERMIAN data set was mostly based on my material, as of 9 (NINE) data points for the Permian, 5 (FIVE) were based on my Oman material. This means that without my data it was not possible to draw the Permian part of the curve.

2) Even if it is a pure geochemical study the AGE and SYSTEMATIC POSITION for the analysed specimens are NEEDED and FUNDAMENTAL, so that a geochemist should not leave out of consideration the quotation of the systematic and biostratigraphic papers in which the material has been already described.

3) About finding "not relevant to cite any systematic works" I would like to add that to have good collections of fossils, geologists/palaeontologists/stratigraphers have to find money to go to the field (not an easy task nowdays), ask and obtain permission from local governmental institutions, (especially in remote and faraway regions), organize and do field work with bed-by-bed sampling, prepare and study the material, compare with other biota and obtain the age. I don't think this is not relevant, even in a pure geochemical study.

4) I never said Dr. Joachimski used to do the same with others. I have no idea if this happened.

5) There are several incorrect taxonomic attributions for specimens OL14 and OL15 in Joachimski et al. 2005, GCA, 69, 4035-4044 as I never provided detailed taxonomic attributions of the specimens I gave to Dr. Joachimski. I was waiting to be asked about this in the name of our "cooperation", but I never was.

6) For what concerns the stratigraphic position several papers have been published by myself and co-authors on the argument after 1997 (Angiolini 2001; Angiolini et al. 2003, 2004) and, as I have been working on it until very recently, there are new data in press I would have discussed with Dr. Joachimski if asked before publication.

7) My letter to the Editors of GCA and to the brachiopod list is not defaming but simply telling what happened. I received offensive comments from Dr. Joachimski in the personal letter and in the two sent to the lists but I never replied.

Lucia Angiolini