Foreign "discoveries" in Geology of the Crimea
The article presents a critical analysis of ideas about the Geology of the Crimea, described in foreign publications 2014-2016. The invalidity of the assignment of Late Triassic-Early Jurassic formation of Tauric flysch to the Early Cretaceous and the absence of structural complex cimmerides are shown. Received by foreign authors point definition nannofossils do not contradict the previously made definitions. With the exception of the samples taken in tectonic melanges and olistostromes in which the Early Cretaceous fauna was known before. As a consequence of the rejuvenation of the stratigraphic complexes was denying the foundations of the Geology of the Crimea, the arisen “problems” of stratigraphy, tectonics, magmatism, age of deformation and geodynamics discussed in the article. The proposed new structural map and sections of the East Mountainous Crimea was based on a flawed hypothesis, on the unjustified attribution of Jurassic conglomerates of Demerdzhi Mountain to the Paleogene, highlighting unreal deep fault and neglect of previously published data. The differences between the proposed models and well-known scientific facts and specific geological objects are shown.