Reply to comment on the paper by Davies et al. “Resolving MISS conceptions and misconceptions: A geological approach to sedimentary surface textures generated by microbial and abiotic processes” (Earth Science Reviews, 154 (2016), 210–246)

We thank Noffke (2017) for her comment and for providing an opportunity to clarify our classification of “sedimentary surface textures”. We accord great credit to Dr. Noffke and other dedicated researchers whose detailed work has brought microbially induced sedimentary structures (MISS) to the widespread attention of geoscientists. However, we stand by our assertion that attributing structures observed in practical field and laboratory studies to processes of formation is much more problematic than Noffke (2017) indicates. Indeed, points in the Comment confirm the need for a classification system that categorises the degree of certainty attributed to a given interpretation. We stress that our paper was not designed as a critique of previous studies of MISS but rather was designed to encourage a reasonable assessment of uncertainty in assigning sedimentary surface textures to physical processes or to MISS. While the contribution of Noffke (2017) raises valid points of discussion, to which we respond below, we first emphasise that in several places the Comment inaccurately reflects the conclusions of Davies et al. (2016). Furthermore, Noffke (2017) attributes to us a large number of statements and assumptions that do not appear in the original paper (e.g., “the paper by Davies et al. regards microbial mats simply as coherent layers that develop at random atop of clastic deposits”, “Davies et al. article assumes that stages of mat development were never considered in MISS research”, “Davies et al.'s statement that crinkled surfaces are now ‘routineously [sic] described as wrinkle structures’ is therefore incorrect”; “they are not interference ripple marks, as the article of Davies et al. assumes”; “The unusual statement by Davies et al. that Noffke (2014) [sic] claims to have detected fossil life on Mars is a misrepresentation of the conclusions presented”; plus other instances). In these and other respects, the Comment published by Noffke (2017) is an erroneous precis of Davies et al. (2016), and we make no attempt here to argue against statements in which our conclusions have been misrepresented.