First, I would like to congratulate Wang et al. (2014) for their important work on the dating of the Panxian fauna, a Triassic fossil Lagerstätte that has produced many exquisitely preserved marine reptiles (Motani et al. 2008) and that marks the full recovery of the marine ecosystem (Jiang et al. 2009) following the Permian–Triassic marine mass extinction (PTME). Papers by Wang et al. (2014) and alike are especially welcomed by vertebrate palaeontologists since they provide precise dating results for some of the most important vertebrate fossils in the world, such as the bizarre protorosaur Dinocephalosaurus orientalis (Li, Rieppel & LaBarbera, 2004) and the earliest marine archosaur Qianosuchus mixtus (Li et al. 2006). This related topic is also interesting because of the very recent debate about the timing of recovery from the PTME, the largest biodiversity crash during the Phanerozoic, from the predators’ perspective (Chen & Benton, 2012; Scheyer et al. 2014).

We thank Liu Jun for his comment on our recent paper (Wang et al. 2014) and are grateful for his calling our attention to this apparent contradiction, and we welcome the opportunity to reply. Based on the sensitive high-resolution ion microscope (SHRIMP) U–Pb zircon age for a volcanic tuff bed within the upper part of the Guanling Formation, we suggested in our study that the age of the fossil horizon of the Panxian fauna is 244 ± 1.3 Ma, which is 14 Ma earlier than the previously estimated age that Li, Rieppel & LaBarbera (2004) published in Science. However, Liu Jun argued that this conclusion is confused, that there is no 14 Ma difference and that there is agreement between the biostratigraphic data and the new radiometric age.