Reply to the comment of Mitchell et al. on “Geomorpho-tectonic evolution of the Jamaican restraining bend” by L. Domínguez-González, L. Andreani, K.P. Stanek and R. Gloaguen [Geomorphology, 228 (2015) 320–334]

We reply to the comments of Mitchell et al. on our paper entitled “Geomorpho-tectonic evolution of the Jamaican restraining bend”. The comments contain statements about the methods that need to be balanced. We agree that the interpretation of the modeled drainage network in some karstified parts of the Jamaican island is difficult, but this does not affect the validity of our analysis elsewhere. We consider that our geomorphic analyses (which also include topographic profiles and morphometric maps) are still valid. The view expressed by Mitchell et al. that we used serially developed landscapes to ‘date’ progressive uplift is an oversimplification of our discussion. We highlighted the differences between the geomorpho-tectonic provinces of Jamaica, and we proposed to explain these differences by a model which involves (1) a westward propagation of the restraining bend and (2) a difference in tectonic styles between the different provinces of Jamaica. Our interpretation does not contradict existing models based on seismotectonic data, provenance analysis or on the origin of Jamaican bauxite. There is a disagreement between James-Williamson et al. (2014), which suggested that central Jamaica was already being uplifted by the end of the Late Miocene, and Domínguez-González et al. (2015), which proposed a Pliocene to present onset of the NE-trending compression toward the SW. However, the timing of the deformation in central and western Jamaica is still poorly constrained and, at this time, any interpretation of the uplift history of central Jamaica should be considered as hypothetical.