LAUSR

Abstract We disagree on many basic aspects of the Cambrian–Triassic tectonic reconstruction of central Qiangtang, Tibet, proposed by Xu et al. (2020) (Earth-Science Reviews, v. 201, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103083 ), because their reconstructions are inconsistent with geological evidence. The allochthonous fragments in the accretionary complex of the Shuanghu suture zone should not be used as indicators of south Qiangtang geology. Furthermore, no evidence exists for repeated drift–collision between north and south Qiangtang along the Shuanghu suture zone from the Paleozoic to Triassic, because the Shuanghu Paleo-Tethys Ocean likely existed from the Cambrian to Triassic, as indicated by continuous ophiolitic rocks. No evidence supports the occurrence of north Qiangtang–Qaidam–Kunlun collision during the Middle Ordovician to early Silurian, because the northward subduction of the Anyemaqen–Kunlun–Muztagh Paleo-Tethyan branch between these two tectonic entities occurred from the Paleozoic to Triassic, as inferred from radiolarian-bearing ophiolitic rocks and coeval arc magmatism in the Kunlun block. In addition, there is no evidence for the North Qiangtang–South China collision during the late Carboniferous to early Permian, because the Jinsa Paleo-Tethyan oceanic branch was active at this time, as evidenced by the presence of radiolarian-bearing ophiolitic fragments in the suture zone.