摘要
This discussion of a paper by Van Loon et al.（2016）, published in the Journal of Palaeogeography（2016, 5（4）, 381e390）, is aimed at illustrating that there are fundamental deficiencies, which include（1）incomplete etymological reasoning for proposing a new genetic term ＂tomboliths＂ for stromatolitic bioclasts in the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, eastern India,（2） omission of empirical data in documenting depositional facies using sedimentological logs,（3） misapplication of the stratigraphic concept of ＂angular unconformity＂,（4） failure to consider the multifarious origins of earthquakes, and（5） a dated view on the basic tenets of process sedimentology and triggering mechanisms of liquefaction that are the basis for forming soft-sediment deformation structures（SSDS）. As a consequence, their conclusions are unconvincing.
This discussion of a paper by Van Loon et al.（2016）, published in the Journal of Palaeogeography（2016, 5（4）, 381e390）, is aimed at illustrating that there are fundamental deficiencies, which include（1）incomplete etymological reasoning for proposing a new genetic term ＂tomboliths＂ for stromatolitic bioclasts in the Palaeoproterozoic Chaibasa Formation, eastern India,（2） omission of empirical data in documenting depositional facies using sedimentological logs,（3） misapplication of the stratigraphic concept of ＂angular unconformity＂,（4） failure to consider the multifarious origins of earthquakes, and（5） a dated view on the basic tenets of process sedimentology and triggering mechanisms of liquefaction that are the basis for forming soft-sediment deformation structures（SSDS）. As a consequence, their conclusions are unconvincing.
