A recent review article (“The hyperpycnite problem”) by Shanmugam (Journal of Palaeogeography 7(3):197–238, 2018) in this journal has some shortcomings, comes to scientifically incorrect conclusions, and calls for student education in a way that would significantly diminish the students’ changes for a geological career. Having studied--and still studying--hyperpycnites in the field, it seems only appropriate to inform the readers of this journal about our concerns regarding the review article mentioned above.Actually, the article by Shanmugam (Journal of Palaeogeography 7(3):197–238, 2018) is not a review paper but rather a comment, criticizing all researchers who have come to the conclusion, on the basis of both field research and theory, that hyperpycnal flows result in sediments (hyperpycnites) with characteristics that make it possible to distinguish them from deposits formed in another way. This is also the essence of Shanmugam’s comment: as he states himself, he is “an ardent critic of all genetic facies models”.

中文翻译：

---

高密度石问题：评论

Shanmugam (Journal of Palaeogeography 7(3):197–238, 2018) 最近在该期刊上发表的一篇评论文章（“The hyperpycnite problem”）存在一些不足之处，得出了科学上不正确的结论，并呼吁以某种方式对学生进行教育将大大减少学生对地质职业的改变。在该领域研究 - 并且仍在研究 - 超重晶石，似乎只适合告知本期刊的读者我们对上述评论文章的担忧。 实际上，Shanmugam 的文章（古地理学杂志 7（3）： 197-238, 2018) 不是评论论文而是评论，批评所有得出结论的研究人员，基于实地研究和理论，高密度流导致沉积物（高密度岩），其特征可以将它们与以其他方式形成的沉积物区分开来。这也是 Shanmugam 评论的精髓：正如他自己所说，他是“所有遗传相模型的热心批评者”。