The authors of the article did not include all known geological data on the thickness of the Upper Hrušov Mbr. There are missing known data from the Ostrava region, Karviná area, and from the area eastern of Frenštát pod Radhoštěm. The actual course of izopachs is somewhat different than stated in the article. There is no evidence that the greatest thickness of the Upper Hrušov Mbr. is situated in the axis of the Příbor – the centre of Ostrava area. The greatest thickness was situated on the West of the today wellknown occurrences in the area, which was eroded. The greatest known 610 meters thickness is situated in the northern-western part of Ostrava. There is no evidence for the thickness of 669 m. In the area of Příbor, where a thickness of 572 meters is given, the real thickness is of 390 metres. The buried Carboniferous Žukov ridge has the thickness of described unit between 70–80 meters rather than 150–300 m, as it was indicated. The authors actually exchanged the marine horizon Františka (in the ceiling there is a lower boundary of the Upper Hrušov Mbr.) with marine horizons Naneta in brackish facies of the Upper Petřkovice Mbr. Also the presented borehole (no Lichnov NP 839) does not present an objective view on the sedimentological evolution of the Upper Hrušov Mbr. in the Czech part of Upper Silesian Basin. This borehole is located in an area with a strong reduced thickness of 120 m.
The authors use an old and not precisely actualized lithostratigraphical correlation of particular members in historical documentation of the boreholes from cca 70´s of the 20th century. In the paper the knowledge and geological mine documentation from the active coal mines were not respected.