This manuscript by Garner et al is on a very interesting topic, rocky coastline microbialites. I welcome the idea to propose a classification for two reasons: first, the manuscript gives a nice overview on various classification approaches used in the world of microbialites; second, the proposed classification itself, specifically for rocky coast microbialites. This leads me to the next point, some critique: the manuscript lacks organization and is hard to follow. This can be fixed easily, however. While reading it was unclear to me, what classification the manuscript is suggesting: the narrative starts out with a lengthy overview on various classifications of microbialites and the history. I found this start confusing. I would simply focus from begin on a short statement that there are different groups of microbialites and that this contribution will focus on rocky coast microbialites. This should be followed by a presentation of classifications by earlier workers from which this manuscript draws some aspects from. Example: some classifications appear to include aspects of the environment (geomorphology), some use the aspect of scale: macro-, meso-, micro-. In a next step, the narrative should be on the actual topic: the classification of rocky coast microbialites. I like the great images and drawings. They are informative and well described. The references are somewhat outdated - please take a look at more recent papers, including the Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology - volume on Prokaryotes (2022). Overall, a highly interesting contribution that discusses the option of a classification for a microbialite group exposed less to the limelight.

I have gone through the manuscript entitled “Reviews and syntheses: Tufa microbialites on rocky coasts towards an integrated terminology

” by Garner et al.

I think this is a valuable piece of work that gathers information of microbialites and aims to organize and make a classification. The authors use diverse information to present and characterize the different cases, but mostly “geomorphological” features. The text is well written. Illustrations are good. Interpretations are correct. References are correct. Through my reading I have found several weak points that the authors may find useful to improve the content quality. As a general comment, there is too much information around (from previous works covering different environments)) that makes the objective unclear. Thus, the paper would benefit from reducing the amount of definitions and other floating information, and from being more concise and straight-forward or direct to address the objective: the rocky coast microbialites. Some issues deal with the following:

1) Structure of the manuscript: at present the arrangement is not the most appropriate. The way it is presented does not help much to make progress on the subject. It requires some revision involving preparation of the text following a classical paper. Present a simpler paper structure.

2) Avoid mixing description and interpretation in the same paragraph or context.

3) Check some expressions and concepts which seem mixed up, or are used as comparable terms (but aren’t equivalent). Examples: a) microbial mats, biofilms and microbialites; b) settings, environments, schemes, sites, models; c) section 2.3 is not making clear the integration, isn’t it?. d) Make sure about “non-biogenic tufas (e.g. bryophyte tufas).

3) The new classification would benefit from adding more information on thickness, textures and sedimentary structures. The small amount of data presented referred to sedimentolological (including petrography) and geochemical information (e.g., from thin sections and stable isotopes), limit the classification to “geomorphological features”.

4) As per the concepts, I encourage the authors to be more accurate when using some expressions, e.g., when referring to “texture” and “fabric”, and “fabric” and “lamination”. There are quite a few cases. Please, check carefully.

5) References:

Alonso-Zarza and Tanner (2010), Dev. in Sed. There are two different volumes by these two editors: 61 and 62. Could you be more concrete? Should you better refer to chapters? Gierlowski-Kordesh, vol 61; Arenas-Abad, vol. 61.; Deocampo, vol., 61, Alonso-Zarza and Wright, vol. 62.

6) The section of “conclusions” is mostly a “summary”.

In brief, I would recommend the authors present a more concise text which directly addresses the objective: the rocky coast microbialites.

I hope my comments will be of help.