The article contains a critical analysis of some recent publications by Ukrainian and French geologists on revising the age of Taurian flysch formation on the Crimean Peninsula from Triassic-Early Jurassic to Early Cretaceous (Albian ) and on "new" interpretation of the geology and geodynamics of the region. On concrete examples it is shown that the samples of the Early Cretaceous microfossils were obtained not from real flysch deposits but from thrust melange matrixes and regional olistostromes that have been identified and described in detail more than 20 years ago. None of the new data on microfauna can be considered a reason to revise the stratigraphy of the Crimea and to date the flysch deposits containing Triassic-Jurassic macrofauna as Lower Cretaceous. The same applies to the Tithonian-Berriasian complex, dated by fauna, in the Feodosiya area and well-studied Valanginian-Hauterivian deposits in the Kacha River which age was reinterpreted correspondingly as Upper Cretaceous and Albian-Cenomanian on the basis of microfauna complexes that are believed to be infiltrated into older deposits. Thus, the "revolutionary" representations of authors of the papers reviewed seem to be the result of not taking into account (ignoring) the facts of the 100-year study of the geology of the Crimea that have being published in numerous Russian-language sources and have become available on the Internet. The "new" Geological map of the Crimea made up by Ukrainian geologists is based on wrong assumptions, incorrect interpretation of the flysch formation and is contradictory to the modern theory of geodynamics in general. The discrepancy between the geological model proposed and well-known scientific facts and specific geological objects has been shown in detail. Refs 52. Figs 4.