Reply: A correspondence from a maturing discipline.

Abstract

In his letter to the editor of the Journal of Medical Entomology , Dr. Wells raises concerns regarding a proliferation of terms used to describe various subcomponents of the postmortem interval (PMI). These terms have arisen with the development of various models to understand the period of time that passes between death, colonization by insects, and the discovery of remains (Amendt et al. 2007, Villet and Amendt 2011, Tomberlin et al. 2011b). The model in Tomberlin et al. (2011b) was intended to facilitate research in carrion decomposition ecology, which informs the use of insects in forensics (Tomberlin et al. 2011a). Dr. Wells takes the issue with postcolonization interval (PCI) and a period of insect activity (PIA). We agree it is important to be explicit about and careful with their use. However, it is also worth noting that over the past few decades, forensic entomology has moved away from using PMI and toward more neutral terms like PIA and PCI. This change in terminology reflects a good-faith trend in the community to be transparent about what insect evidence provides to the legal system. Forensic entomologists believe that insect evidence is informative of the timeline associated with a death. The probative value of forensic entomology information relies upon a correlation between what the insects tell us about a death and the actual PMI. However, forensic entomology is also concerned with the exact nature of such a correlation. These concerns lead to important research questions, such as what is the coefficient of correlation? Is it a linear relationship? What causes outliers? Research is needed to address the concerns regarding the relationship between insect evidence and the PMI. In particular, research into the specific subcomponents of the PMI should seek to clarify the nature of the correlations between …