Criticism of the age-model used by Dameron et al. (in press) is commented hereby. This criticism essentially concerns the age of the first occurrence of calcareous nannofossil Micula prinsii at Shatsky Rise, central Pacific, which should not be considered older than 66.6 Ma, rather than 67.3 Ma as considered by the authors. Although this criticism does not fundamentally change the environmental and paleoceanographic interpretations of Dameron et al. (in press), the age of this bioevent influences quite a lot the time scale used for the latest Maastrichtian and thus the actual age of the termination of their main dissolution interval and the duration of the partial recovery in carbonate preservation. We recommend the authors to modify their age-model and to provide alternative durations and ages for the sequence of events in the end-Maastrichtian interval as such revised ages constitute an important base for comparison with the timescale of Deccan volcanism and other end-Cretaceous perturbations.