New fossils from the area of the Dnipro ice lobe and the Chibanian–Late Pleistocene boundary: A reply to Mroczek et al. (2025)

The stratigraphic and palaeogeographic interpretations in our article (Popova et al., 2025) received criticism from Mroczek et al. (2025), who argued that our results contradict regional and global stratigraphic models and that we propose a revision of the Ukrainian regional stratigraphic scheme without sufficient data background. We want to clarify that the main focus of our study was to shed light on climatically induced biotic transformations in the Middle Dnipro area during deglaciation and postglacial stages. We did not revise the stratigraphic framework but only provided support for an already established correlation model, according to which the Dnipro stage is associated with MIS 6, the Kaidaky with MIS 5e and the Tiasmyn with MIS 5d. This stratigraphic scheme is opposed by Mroczek et al. (2025), who questioned the reliability of our results. Here, we address their comments and discuss an approach to deal with competing stratigraphic models and methods of biostratigraphic, palaeogeographical and palaeoecological interpretation.