Dear Authors,

thank you for addressing the points raised by the reviewers and in the short comment. The manuscript has been substantially improved. It's therefore my pleasure to accept it for publication. I ask you though to consider also the additional two comments raised by Referee #2 (pasted below for the sake of clarity), which require a minor revision.

With kind regards

Claudia Piromallo


[...] I have listed below some comments to a couple of issues, that may eventually be considered by the authors. Solving the complexity of the motion of Iberia with respect to the convergence between Africa and Europe is certainly a difficult task. The authors have decided to use a mega transform that links the NPF to the problematic Eoalpine orogeny in the eastern Alps. Such a solution has been adopted elsewhere but the uncertainties, I believe, are still many. In lines 173-179 a statement and some references have been added to support the choice of a lithospheric strike slip system connecting the NPF to the Eoalpine orogen of the Eastern Austroalpine. However, these references are not really bringing evidence; rather they just infer the occurrence of a possible strike slip system. The age of the inferred strike slip activity is also not strictly comparable to the timing of the reconstruction in the 130 Ma panel of Fig. 4.
Taking the words of Schuster and Frank 1999: "The time of these strike slip movements is difficult to assess. Obviously they were active prior to Cretaceous tectonics and metamorphism, including the high-pressure event at c. 100 Ma. The lower time limit is defined by the Triassic facies distribution. Therefore a Jurassic age is the most realistic assumption. Several indications argue for Jurassic sinistral strike slip tectonics". A Jurassic strike slip system to account for the observed syn-sedimentary tectonics, as an alternative to a postulated Jurassic subduction, is also inferred by Frank and Schlager 2006. Also Stüwe and Schuster 2010 state that "The strike slip motion has to be later than the obduction of the Dinaric ophiolite nappes (170–160 Ma; Fig. 2A) and earlier than the onset of the Eoalpine compression in the Early Cretaceous (135 Ma)."
lines 667-676: I am still puzzled by the way you tested the Jurassic opening of the Ionian basin. I suppose that having that basin closed by Triassic time can affect the position of Adria with respect to Africa, and therefore also what you call the "Adria problem" depicted in Fig. 3. Is it correct?

Dear Authors,

thank you for considering the suggested minor revisions to your manuscript. It is a pleasure to accept your paper for final publication on Solid Earth.

With best wishes

Claudia Piromallo