Abstract:

This paper is a reply to 3 review papers by SU Dechen, QIAO Xiufu, JIANG Hanchao and JI Shaocheng: (1) The author agrees with the viewpoint of Prof. JI Shaocheng: “Seismites should be translated into dizhenyan (地震岩)”, because translation should be true to the original. It should not be a problem. (2) The most important problem is the foundation of “seismites”, i. e., the 4 “fault graded beds” proposed by Seilacher (1969) in which fractures are filled with white infillings. They are not SSDS. They are not seismites because they are without evidence of seismic origin. The researches of these fractures are related to the domain of structural geology. (3) Theoretical innovation can only be started from problem. Shanmugam firstly proposed that the foundation of the term seismites proposed by Seilacher is problematic. (4) The discussion and contending about seismites, etc., has got some theoretical innovation. It means that the policy “A hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend” is an effective measure to promote the progress of scientific researches.

Key words: seismites, dizhenyan (地震岩), soft-sediment deformation structures, structural geology