Comments on GJ-20-0139

The authors reviewed the history of concept of “bimodal magmatic suites”, and this concept not only has a particular rock assemblage, but has its special tectonic significance. Unfortunately, the authors incorrectly used it to refer the intermediate and felsic rocks, although very few authors has such opinion, such a concept is not accepted by most authors as it cannot show any particular tectonic environment, and most importantly, if all concepts are used in such a messy way, there will be nothing to follow.

In addition, the authors only studied very limited samples collected from a more limited area, how they can define “bimodal suites” with the studied intermediate and felsic rocks. There are many publications reported mafic rocks of same ages in this area, but the authors ignored these references. So, use of “bimodal” is usually incorrect because of limited studying samples or limited acknowledgement of the region.

The authors used some useless and confusing wordings, for instance, what is the “age-corrected εNd(t) values”? Isn’t εNd(t) value itself calculated with the age of rock? Is there any special method for calculating the “age-corrected” values? I cannot find in the data table nor in the text. It’s strange to me.

The limited geochronological and geochemical data of samples from a small point of field are used to build a big story on the regional tectonic evolution of a large region. That could not convince me. Particularly, a lot of previously stratigraphic, sedimentary and structural data are not combined and compared to have a comprehensive analysis. Such a way of study will present some new data in the term of good point and also will raise some misleading troubles in the study of the regional geology. In fact, many geochronological and geochemical studies have been conducted on the similar rocks of the region, what is the reason the authors date again only one sample, and just to select intermediate and felsic volcanic rocks to study? There are also many intrusive rocks in this region. It is not clearly address in Introduction or sampling sections.

Therefore, I would not prefer to recommend publication of the paper in the journal, and think that the work needs more thoughtful refining.