Geochemical Characteristics and U–Pb Dating of Granites in the Western Granitoid Belt of Thailand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

granite studies are essential for the understanding of the regional geological development. Your work sheds light on granite emplacement in a region, which is large and important for refinement of plate tectonic reconstructions, but still inadequately known to the international community. This is why it is very suitable to “Geosciences”. Your manuscript is based on an original, methodologically advanced research project, and it is novel, informative, and internationally important. The manuscript is also written, structured, referenced, and illustrated appropriately. Nonetheless, some improvements are necessary – particularly, because two first sections are underdeveloped. I hope my recommendations will help to bring this work in order.

1)      Title and Abstract: please, reflect very briefly the conceptual/international importance of your study.

2)      Key words: it is commonly advised to not the words from the title as key words.

3)      Introduction: this section is abnormally short. You have to explain the general importance of your study and its novelty comparing to the previous works. The readers also need to understand why you focus on this area.

4)      Section 2: again, it is TOO short. For instance, you can write about the position of the study rocks relatively the other igneous and sedimentary complexes. When did the main orogenies take place regionally? Moreover, you have to outline the temporal framework of your region – please, indicate the main phases of its development and tell when did they take place. I also feel that you have to prefer the Metcalfe’s view of the plate tectonics. Well, I do not question this, but I also advise you to refer to the other plate tectonic reconstructions, including those offered by G. Stampfli, D. Muller, etc. Moreover, look for the fresher works by Metclafe himself! This will make your characteristics more balanced.

5)      Lines 72-73 and Table 1: which classification have you used to give the names for your rock types?

6)      Discussion: you have a lot of interesting findings reported in Results. What I propose to do in Discussion is to compose a simple table, where you can list all your analyses, indicate the related results (in general form), and offer interpretations for each of them. This will really help the readers and make your work sounding stronger and clearer.

7)      Discussion: any simple plate tectonic reconstruction would be suitable.

8)      Discussion: where you consider the origin of tin deposits, I strongly advise you to look at the works by H. Dill (especially about the so-called chessboard classification) who systematized the knowledge of the origin of all kinds of mineral deposits.

9)      Conclusions: what are the limitations of your study and the perspectives for future research?

Author Response

To Reviewer 1:

Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions to our manuscript submitted to Geosciences. We revised our manuscript taking them into consideration as follows:

Point 1: Title and Abstract: please, reflect very briefly the conceptual/international importance of your study.

Response: We believe the title of the paper is appropriate.

  As for the “Abstract”, we have made every effort to keep it compact and to summarize the necessary information.

Point 2: Key words: it is commonly advised to not the words from the title as key words.

Response: We consider that “Keywords” reflect the content of the article and are appropriate.

Point 3: Introduction: this section is abnormally short. You have to explain the general importance of your study and its novelty comparing to the previous works. The readers also need to understand why you focus on this area.

Response: We rearranged it to be composed of the typical sections of an article: "Introduction," "Materials and Methods," "Results," "Discussion," and "Conclusions." By doing so, we believe the “Introduction” is never too short. However, we added a few sentences to the “Introduction”.

Point 4: Section 2: again, it is TOO short. For instance, you can write about the position of the study rocks relatively the other igneous and sedimentary complexes. When did the main orogenies take place regionally? Moreover, you have to outline the temporal framework of your region – please, indicate the main phases of its development and tell when did they take place. I also feel that you have to prefer the Metcalfe’s view of the plate tectonics. Well, I do not question this, but I also advise you to refer to the other plate tectonic reconstructions, including those offered by G. Stampfli, D. Muller, etc. Moreover, look for the fresher works by Metclafe himself! This will make your characteristics more balanced.

Response: “2. Geological setting” has been integrated into “1. Introduction” as described in the Response to Point 4.

  We consider Metcalfe (2013) and Wang et al. (2016) newer and more reliable than Stampfli and Muller, etc.

Point 5: Lines 72-73 and Table 1: which classification have you used to give the names for your rock types?

Response: Rocks were named based on their constituent minerals and whole-rock chemical composition (TAS diagram).

Point 6: Discussion: you have a lot of interesting findings reported in Results. What I propose to do in Discussion is to compose a simple table, where you can list all your analyses, indicate the related results (in general form), and offer interpretations for each of them. This will really help the readers and make your work sounding stronger and clearer.

Response: The geochemical characteristics, Nd-Sr initial isotope ratios, and zircon U-Pb dating results for the studied granites are summarized in section “4. Discussion”. Therefore, we do not consider that it is necessary to summarize the obtained results in a table again.

Point 7: Discussion: any simple plate tectonic reconstruction would be suitable.

Response: We prepared a schematic diagram as Figure 16, showing the tectonic evolution and granite formation around the boundary between the Sibumasu and West Burma blocks.

Point 8: Discussion: where you consider the origin of tin deposits, I strongly advise you to look at the works by H. Dill (especially about the so-called chessboard classification) who systematized the knowledge of the origin of all kinds of mineral deposits.

Response: Gill (2010) is a major work on the classification of mineral deposits, but we see no need to cite it in this article.

Point 9: Conclusions: what are the limitations of your study and the perspectives for future research?

Response: We believe that “Conclusions” is a compact statement of the results of the research, not a statement of the limitations of the study and the perspectives for future research.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “Geochemical characteristics and U-Pb dating of granites in the Western Granitoid Belt of Thailand” (2981841) has been reviewed carefully. The MS reports new zircon U-Pb ages from granitoids of Western Granitoid Belt in Thailand. This paper is relevant to the field of the Geosciences journal. However, there are some significant academic problems that need to be resolved before formal review of this MS. Only geochemical features of the granitoids and zircon U-Pb ages are listed, further discussion or petrological genesis studies need to be taken. The current MS seems not so professional to the journal. The major and minor problems are listed follows. So that, I think that the manuscript need revision and resubmit to Geosciences.

 Major issues:

1. Further geochronological and geochemistry studies should be based on a solid foundation of field research. The geological map of the studied granitoids (Figure 2) is too simple. Necessary geological units (for instance, basic/ultrabasic rock units) need to be marked here, as the authors conclude a subduction and suture zone in this area, the current map only labels granitoids.

2. Macroscopic characteristics of the studied granitoids are missed in the 4.1 section. Besides, the current Figure 3 is full of problems and unsuitability issues: the granitoids figures are fuzzy, some pictures seem not granitic rock (d), the measuring scale of micrograph need to be checked.

3. Zircon CL images and data of U-Pb dating both indicate the results of the TG404 sample is trustless. Excessive inappropriate data makes the MS a mess, the authors need to make a choice to illustrate the most important scientific issue.

4. The discussion is too poor to be a part of a scientific paper. The specific scientific issues discussed in this section should be clarified at least. Conclusion based solely on the results, not discussion and studies by the authors or previous researchers. 

5. The first conclusion is not a scientific conclusion. Besides, the Sn mineralization and associated granitoids is not the major issue of this study, and should not be repeated emphasis in the conclusion.

Minor and some detailed issues:

1.LINE 13-14: “The samples collected from the granite bodies were classified as granites” is excessive;

2.LINE 23-24: The English is misleading, please check the language;

3.LINE 30 :“Thailand” is inappropriate as a keyword;

4.LINE 166 :The abbreviation of Hb in Figure 3 is not listed behind, and muscovite is usually abbreviated as “Ms”;

5.LINE 175: tourmaline is usually abbreviated as “Tur”;

6.LINE 211: You should mind the significant digits in Table 2;

7.LINE 216: Figure 6 is inappropriate, as the result is not consistent to the later two figures and the author had not provide convincing explanations;

8.LINE 310-312: The Al2O3 contents from the TG401 and TG402 (14.23 to 14.25%) are not so low as illustrated here, the interpretation here is not so convincing;

9.LINE 327-330: The collision geological process discussed here should include other representative units, for instance, basic dykes, A type granites in the suture zone;

10. LINE 339: I wonder if you try to identify the “ilmenite series” to “S-type granites” here;

11.LINE 343-345: The conclusion in this sentence is not supported by your foundation or illustration here;

12.LINE 345-353: The Sn mineralization and distribution you illustrate here is not the core issue in this MS, as you have not listed any of your study results or opinions supported by this study;

13.LINE 356: The conclusion 6(1) is inappropriate as a core conclusion of this study;

The English language proficiency is acceptable, although still some mialeading descriptions as listed in the suggestions.

Author Response

To Reviewer 2:

Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions to our manuscript submitted to Geosciences. We revised our manuscript taking them into consideration as follows:

 Major issues:

Point 1: Further geochronological and geochemistry studies should be based on a solid foundation of field research. The geological map of the studied granitoids (Figure 2) is too simple. Necessary geological units (for instance, basic/ultrabasic rock units) need to be marked here, as the authors conclude a subduction and suture zone in this area, the current map only labels granitoids.

Response: Figure 2 has been changed to “a geological map”, showing the distribution of granite and sampling locations.

Point 2: Macroscopic characteristics of the studied granitoids are missed in the 4.1 section. Besides, the current Figure 3 is full of problems and unsuitability issues: the granitoids figures are fuzzy, some pictures seem not granitic rock (d), the measuring scale of micrograph need to be checked.

Response: We have added some descriptions of the macroscopic characteristics for the collected samples.

  The photograph of the sample TG404 shows that it is a typical granite.

  We have confirmed that the measuring scale is correct.

Point 3: Zircon CL images and data of U-Pb dating both indicate the results of the TG404 sample is trustless. Excessive inappropriate data makes the MS a mess, the authors need to make a choice to illustrate the most important scientific issue.

Response: Although we were unable to obtain a concordant age for Sample TG404, almost of the plots of ²⁰⁶Pb/²³⁸U vs. ²⁰⁷Pb/²³⁵U ride on a straight line. In such cases, we can obtain a relatively good U-Pb age from the discordant data. In fact, the discordant age (86.41 Ma) obtained for Sample TG404 is concordant to the ages of other granite bodies (83.87-87.69 Ma).

Point 4: The discussion is too poor to be a part of a scientific paper. The specific scientific issues discussed in this section should be clarified at least. Conclusion based solely on the results, not discussion and studies by the authors or previous researchers. 

Response: We have endeavored to combine the results of this study with those of previous studies to formulate “Discussion”.

Point 5: The first conclusion is not a scientific conclusion. Besides, the Sn mineralization and associated granitoids is not the major issue of this study, and should not be repeated emphasis in the conclusion.

Response: Conclusions (1) and (2) were combined into one.

  We have tried to eliminate duplications of Sn mineralization in the “Conclusions”.

Minor and some detailed issues:

Point 6: LINE 13-14: “The samples collected from the granite bodies were classified as granites” is excessive;

Response: This sentence was rewritten as follows: “All samples are proper granite based on their mineralogical and geochemical characteristics”.

Point 7: LINE 23-24: The English is misleading, please check the language;

Response: The sentence was rewritten as follows: “Initial Nd–Sr isotopic ratios indicate a higher contribution of mantle material in the Lam Pi magnetite-series granites, and a higher contribution of continental crust material in the other granites.”

Point 8: LINE 30 :“Thailand” is inappropriate as a keyword;

Response: We consider that “Thailand” is a necessary as one of the keywords because the granites distributed in Thailand are the target of this study.

Point 9: LINE 166 :The abbreviation of Hb in Figure 3 is not listed behind, and muscovite is usually abbreviated as “Ms”;

Response: Hb(Hbl) was added to Abbreviation in Figure 3. Also, the abbreviation of muscovite was changed to “Ms”.

Point 10: LINE 175: tourmaline is usually abbreviated as “Tur”;

Response: The abbreviation of tourmaline was changed to “Tur”.

Point 11: LINE 211: You should mind the significant digits in Table 2;

Response: The table was reviewed with attention to significant digits.

Point 12: LINE 216: Figure 6 is inappropriate, as the result is not consistent to the later two figures and the author had not provide convincing explanations;

Response: We rewrote as follows: “all other granites except the Lam Pi magnetite-series granites are ultimately classified as S- or A-type”.

Point 13: LINE 310-312: The Al2O3 contents from the TG401 and TG402 (14.23 to 14.25%) are not so low as illustrated here, the interpretation here is not so convincing;

Response: In general, there is no positive correlation between Al₂O₃ in the whole-rock composition and total Al in the biotite. Rather, a negative correlation is obtained if much of Ca is present as an anorthite component in plagioclase.

Point 14: LINE 327-330: The collision geological process discussed here should include other representative units, for instance, basic dykes, A type granites in the suture zone;

Response: “The ilmenite-series granites distributed in the Western Granitoid Belt are believed to have formed as a result of the collision between the West Burma and Sibumasu blocks” was rewrote as follows: “The ilmenite-series and S- or A-type granites distributed in the Western Granitoid Belt are believed to have formed as a result of the collision between the West Burma and Sibumasu blocks”.

Point 15: LINE 339: I wonder if you try to identify the “ilmenite series” to “S-type granites” here;

Response: “ilmenite-series and S-type granites” was rewritten as “ilmenite-series and S- or A-type granites”.

Point 16: LINE 343-345: The conclusion in this sentence is not supported by your foundation or illustration here;

Response: This sentence was rewritten as follows: “In contrast, it is deduced that the formation of the Lam Pi magnetite-series granites in the Western Granitoid Belt have been associated with the subduction of the Neo-Tethyan oceanic crust, which was located west of the West Burma Blocks”.

Point 17: LINE 345-353: The Sn mineralization and distribution you illustrate here is not the core issue in this MS, as you have not listed any of your study results or opinions supported by this study;

Response: Since western Thailand is one of the world's leading sources of Sn, we think it is important to touch on its formation here, and it is important in this paper to compare it to the Andes Mountains, another important source of Sn.

Point 18: LINE 356: The conclusion 6(1) is inappropriate as a core conclusion of this study;

Response: This sentence was rewritten as follows: “Based on mineralogical and geochemical characteristics, granitic rock samples collected from the Ranong, Lam Pi, Ban Lam Ru, and Phuket granitic bodies of the Western Granitoid Belt, Thailand, can all be classified as granites.”

Reviewer 3 Report

Lines 2-3, Title: It is ok. It is informative and tells about the content of the manuscript.

Line 10, Abstract: Delete “We conducted” and replace by: The present paper presents combination of ....... You can also use "integration" instead of "combination".

There are several linguistic errors in the abstract, for example the preposition “on” in line 11 that should be “for”. Also, in the abstract, please delete a complete sentence in lines 13-14, and replace by: All samples are proper granite based on their mineralogical and geochemical characteristics.

Line 18, Abstract: Is the enrichment in incompatible elements represented by Sn only?. If not, add other elements. Probably W and others are expected to be enriched too.

Lines 30-31, Keywords: They are suitable and cover all aspects of the manuscripts.

Lines 34-43, Introduction: It needs some modifications as indicated in the annotated pdf attachment.

Line 40, Introduction: Replace "alluvial or placer" by: alluvial placer because from the genetic point of classification, placer deposits represent a broad clan that are distinguished into plaeoplacers, eolian placers and alluvial (plus residual and elluvial) placers.

Lines 44-60, Geological setting: It is ok.

Line 61, Fig. 1: The tectonic map needs a geographic north (N) and an arrow. Names of seas and oceans should be indicated too.

Line 65, Materials and methods: It is agreed that the investigated felsic rocks are proper granites, so please ban the use of "granitic rocks" all over the text and replace by Granites, The investigated granites, ....etc. Delete "a total of". It is preferable to write down numbers in letters, i.e. 15 should be fifteen.

Line 70: I prefer to replace "handheld" by "portable".

Line 79: Similar to the tectonic map shown in Fig. 1, the sample location map in Fig. 2 lacks geographic north (N) and an arrow. It is better to shorten and insert the bar scale inside the frame of the map.

Line 166: Hand specimen of granites appearing in Fig. 3 look very bad. There are no distinct megascopic features to be shown. Also, the photomicrographs of thin-sections show nothing useful in terms of any texture or accessory minerals that might vary from a granite sample to another. Also, authors are asked to state clearly that the microscopic photos are all between crossed-nicols.

Line 211, Table 2: It is odd to put the unit as percent (%) for all major oxides. It is enough to mention in the figure caption (or as footnote) that major oxides are in wt%. Similarly, ppm can be written once only for the trace elements.

Lines 214-215: Localities of samples, in the form of legend, in the TAS diagram (Fig. 5) should be readable. Also, the caption should include that the dividing line between the alkalic an sub-alkalic fields are after Irvine and Baragar (1971).

Lines 217 and 220, Figs 6 and 7: Legend of sample location needs to be readable.

Line 236, Fig. 9: For the legend of sample location, it can be presented only in Fig. 5, of course in a readable form, then in the captions of Figs. 6, 7, 8 and 9 the authors needs to add "Symbols are as in Fig. 5". Also for Fig. 11 and what is so else.

Line 245: Please change the sub-title to: Chemistry of biotite.

Line 250: Where is the table of biotite composition?. It is not logic to plot points of mineral chemistry without source of data. It is a must to be given, at least as a supplementary file. Also, in the methods section it was stated that chemical composition of biotite was determined by SEM-EDX and not by the electron microprobe (EMPA). If so, and taking in consideration that biotite is a hydrous mineral, how were cations distributed and corrected in the structural formula?. Authors need to justify this issue. Probably they would provide supplementary BSE images for the analyzed biotite too.

Lines 354-371: Conclusions presented by the authors are good and based on a solid scientific base shown in the previous section or the discussion. Nevertheless, it is recommended to fragment the given conclusions into 5-6 bullets without deviation from the output of the research.

Lines 388 to 481: The reference list includes 49 titles. They are enough and updated.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English needs more care.

Author Response

To Reviewer 3:

Response: Thank you for your following insightful comments and suggestions to our manuscript submitted to “Geosciences”. We revised our manuscript taking them into consideration. However, the granite sample photographs and their photomicrographs in Figure 3 were retained. This is because these photographs show more or less the characteristics of the granite samples. In addition, in Figures 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12, we decided to leave the legends as they are because we consider that this would be easier for the readers to understand.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lines 2-3, Title: It is ok. It is informative and tells about the content of the manuscript.

Line 10, Abstract: Delete “We conducted” and replace by: The present paper presents combination of ....... You can also use "integration" instead of "combination".

There are several linguistic errors in the abstract, for example the preposition “on” in line 11 that should be “for”. Also, in the abstract, please delete a complete sentence in lines 13-14, and replace by: All samples are proper granite based on their mineralogical and geochemical characteristics.

Line 18, Abstract: Is the enrichment in incompatible elements represented by Sn only?. If not, add other elements. Probably W and others are expected to be enriched too.

Lines 30-31, Keywords: They are suitable and cover all aspects of the manuscripts.

Lines 34-43, Introduction: It needs some modifications as indicated in the annotated pdf attachment.

Line 40, Introduction: Replace "alluvial or placer" by: alluvial placer because from the genetic point of classification, placer deposits represent a broad clan that are distinguished into plaeoplacers, eolian placers and alluvial (plus residual and elluvial) placers.

Lines 44-60, Geological setting: It is ok.

Line 61, Fig. 1: The tectonic map needs a geographic north (N) and an arrow. Names of seas and oceans should be indicated too.

Line 65, Materials and methods: It is agreed that the investigated felsic rocks are proper granites, so please ban the use of "granitic rocks" all over the text and replace by Granites, The investigated granites, ....etc. Delete "a total of". It is preferable to write down numbers in letters, i.e. 15 should be fifteen.

Line 70: I prefer to replace "handheld" by "portable".

Line 79: Similar to the tectonic map shown in Fig. 1, the sample location map in Fig. 2 lacks geographic north (N) and an arrow. It is better to shorten and insert the bar scale inside the frame of the map.

Line 166: Hand specimen of granites appearing in Fig. 3 look very bad. There are no distinct megascopic features to be shown. Also, the photomicrographs of thin-sections show nothing useful in terms of any texture or accessory minerals that might vary from a granite sample to another. Also, authors are asked to state clearly that the microscopic photos are all between crossed-nicols.

Line 211, Table 2: It is odd to put the unit as percent (%) for all major oxides. It is enough to mention in the figure caption (or as footnote) that major oxides are in wt%. Similarly, ppm can be written once only for the trace elements.

Lines 214-215: Localities of samples, in the form of legend, in the TAS diagram (Fig. 5) should be readable. Also, the caption should include that the dividing line between the alkalic an sub-alkalic fields are after Irvine and Baragar (1971).

Lines 217 and 220, Figs 6 and 7: Legend of sample location needs to be readable.

Line 236, Fig. 9: For the legend of sample location, it can be presented only in Fig. 5, of course in a readable form, then in the captions of Figs. 6, 7, 8 and 9 the authors needs to add "Symbols are as in Fig. 5". Also for Fig. 11 and what is so else.

Line 245: Please change the sub-title to: Chemistry of biotite.

Line 250: Where is the table of biotite composition? It is not logic to plot points of mineral chemistry without source of data. It is a must to be given, at least as a supplementary file. Also, in the methods section it was stated that chemical composition of biotite was determined by SEM-EDX and not by the electron microprobe (EMPA). If so, and taking in consideration that biotite is a hydrous mineral, how were cations distributed and corrected in the structural formula? Authors need to justify this issue. Probably they would provide supplementary BSE images for the analyzed biotite too.

Lines 354-371: Conclusions presented by the authors are good and based on a solid scientific base shown in the previous section or the discussion. Nevertheless, it is recommended to fragment the given conclusions into 5-6 bullets without deviation from the output of the research.

Lines 388 to 481: The reference list includes 49 titles. They are enough and updated.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made appropriate modifications and necessary explainations on the MS. Although some explainations still need further considerations, for instance, the U-Pb dating results, I recommend the MS accept as a scientific paper in Geosciences.

Wish you have a happy labor day.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Point 1: The authors have made appropriate modifications and necessary explainations on the MS. Although some explainations still need further considerations, for instance, the U-Pb dating results, I recommend the MS accept as a scientific paper in Geosciences.

Response: Thank you for your comments and suggestions, which we receive previously, to improve the quality of the manuscript. In addition, we appreciate your final decision.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the modifications and corrections. Of course the manuscript looks better now but there are some minor issues to be considered as follows:

I am still not in agreement with the current status of Figure 3. I believe that twelve (12) photos either for the hand specimens or for the microscopic investigation are not indicative. It is much better to reduce number and show some important characteristic either megascopically or microscopically. You can divide this figure into two separate plates and accordingly mineralogical and textural features would be enhanced greatly. Also, the 1 mm bar scale given at the lower part, is it valid for all microphotographs?.

Line 175, Table 1 (modal analysis): If you mean titanite, then the abbreviation should be Ttn not Tti, same as the authors do at the footnote of the table.

Also, in Table 1 for the granite samples collected from the Lam Pi locality, you need to change the verb from “is” to “are” for alterations of minerals because they are more than two in this case.

Line 214, Table 2 (whole-rock chemical analysis): When % is put beside SiO₂ only is incorrect because it is the unit for the rest of major oxides. You need, either you modify the table caption or use a footnote. In this case you need to indicate clearly that all major oxides are measured in wt% (please be careful not % only) and all trace elements are in ppm. If you do this, do not forget to remove ppm beside Sc in the lower part of the table. Also, for this table, you need to indicate that (T) means that all iron is measured as Fe³⁺ oxide.

Line 215, last row in Table 2: The U content in the investigated granites indicates that many of them are uraniferous and contains up to ~35 ppm of this radioelement. Of course the 146 ppm U content in a sample from Phuket (TG014) is odd but up to 35 ppm U is appreciable and needs a comment in the form of line or two by the authors. Radioactivity of the granite samples is recommended to be studied in the future, and also consider high contents of Th and possibly radiogeneic potassium.

Finally and based on Data of the Supplementary File S1, there are some comments about the chemistry of mica. I wonder why the authors did not analyse muscovite, which appears in the thin-sections of some samples as seen in Fig. 3?!!!. It is much better to use chemistry of biotite and muscovite together as significant petrogenetic indicator in the crystallization of subduction-related felsic magmas. Also, it is not recommended to analyze “hydrous phyllosilicate” like biotite or other micas by the SEM-EDX technique that never consider water molecule or OH group. Even there are some recalculations to bring the analysis into anhydrous status, it is neither accurate nor acceptable.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English is not bad and needs fine polishing only.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript. We revised our manuscript taking them into consideration as follows:

Point 1: I am still not in agreement with the current status of Figure 3. I believe that twelve (12) photos either for the hand specimens or for the microscopic investigation are not indicative. It is much better to reduce number and show some important characteristic either megascopically or microscopically. You can divide this figure into two separate plates and accordingly mineralogical and textural features would be enhanced greatly. Also, the 1 mm bar scale given at the lower part, is it valid for all microphotographs?.

Response: We have chosen to show pictures of five representative granite samples. Photos of hand specimens are shown on the left and photomicrographs on the right. The same is true for all with respect to scale.

Point 2: Line 175, Table 1 (modal analysis): If you mean titanite, then the abbreviation should be Ttn not Tti, same as the authors do at the footnote of the table.

Response: We have corrected them as you suggested.

Point 3: Also, in Table 1 for the granite samples collected from the Lam Pi locality, you need to change the verb from “is” to “are” for alterations of minerals because they are more than two in this case.

Response: We have corrected them as you suggested.

Point 4: Line 214, Table 2 (whole-rock chemical analysis): When % is put beside SiO2 only is incorrect because it is the unit for the rest of major oxides. You need, either you modify the table caption or use a footnote. In this case you need to indicate clearly that all major oxides are measured in wt% (please be careful not % only) and all trace elements are in ppm. If you do this, do not forget to remove ppm beside Sc in the lower part of the table. Also, for this table, you need to indicate that (T) means that all iron is measured as Fe3+ oxide.

Response: In Table 2, we have indicated that the units are wt% for major components and ppm for minor elements. In the footnote, we indicated that “Fe₂O₃(T)” means "Total iron as Fe₂O₃".

Point 5: Line 215, last row in Table 2: The U content in the investigated granites indicates that many of them are uraniferous and contains up to ~35 ppm of this radioelement. Of course the 146 ppm U content in a sample from Phuket (TG014) is odd but up to 35 ppm U is appreciable and needs a comment in the form of line or two by the authors. Radioactivity of the granite samples is recommended to be studied in the future, and also consider high contents of Th and possibly radiogeneic potassium.

Response: We added the following sentence: “The contents for U and Th are 11-35 ppm and 28-234 ppm, respectively, except for sample TG014, which shows higher values of 146 ppm and 229 ppm, respectively.”

Point 6: Finally and based on Data of the Supplementary File S1, there are some comments about the chemistry of mica. I wonder why the authors did not analyse muscovite, which appears in the thin-sections of some samples as seen in Fig. 3?!!!. It is much better to use chemistry of biotite and muscovite together as significant petrogenetic indicator in the crystallization of subduction-related felsic magmas. Also, it is not recommended to analyze “hydrous phyllosilicate” like biotite or other micas by the SEM-EDX technique that never consider water molecule or OH group. Even there are some recalculations to bring the analysis into anhydrous status, it is neither accurate nor acceptable.

Response: Muscovite was not analyzed because it does not occur commonly in the granites studied.

Water content could not be analyzed in SEM-EDS. However, we believe that the deviation of the total content from 100% in the analysis is basically due to H₂O.