Reply to discussion of “Permian—Triassic vertebrate footprints from South Africa: Ichnotaxonomy, producers and biostratigraphy through two major faunal crises” by Marchetti, L., Klein, H., Buchwitz, M., Ronchi, A., Smith, R.M.H., DeKlerk, W.J., Sciscio, L., and Groenewald, G.H. (2019)

Our recent comprehensive review of the Permian-Early Triassic tetrapod tracksites from South Africa includes a revision of the ichnotaxonomy and the incorporation of a large quantity of new material. The paper also discusses, in light of the revised ichnotaxonomy and palaeontology of several sites, trackmaker attribution and the biostratigraphy of Permian-Early Triassic tetrapod tracks. Precise information about the fossiliferous localities was provided where possible and when sites were relocated. Three footprint associations were described (FA I-III) and highlight their potential stratigraphic value. The youngest (FA III) was recognized at four different localities and is likely Induan in age. A recent comment by Gastaldo and Neveling (2019) regarded one of these FA III localities, the Bethel tracksite, which received criticism for its unclear geographic placement and its stratigraphic position. Further comments included a discussion of the possible palaeoecological interpretation of this tracksite. In replying to these queries, we provided more precise geographic and stratigraphic information, confirming the occurrence of this tracksite ~15 m above the faunal transition which we consider to be currently coinciding with the Permian-Triassic boundary (PTB). Palaeoecological inferences are herein further clarified.