Reply: Commentary on letter to the editor from Jeffrey Wells.

Abstract

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to Dr. Wells' letter, although it appears that he does not take issue with our work (indeed Dr. Wells is a coauthor on Campobasso et al. [2005]). However, as forensic pathologists, we would like to express our point of view on the definitions of terms like postcolonization interval (PCI) and period of insect activity (PIA) concerning the estimation of postmortem interval (PMI) based on the entomological evidence. The letter to the Editor by Dr. Wells follows a previous oral presentation the same author gave in Coimbra at the last annual European Association for Forensic Entomology (EAFE) meeting in April 2013 (http://www.eafe.org/Meeting_Coimbra.htm). Dr. Wells raises several criticisms to the practical implications of PCI and PIA as defined by Tomberlin et al. (2011) to guide basic research. In this regard, we agree with his final suggestion that no forensic entomologist should use those definitions unless she or he has fully explained, in the report, the exact meaning. Although Campobasso et al. (2005) did not provide an explicit definition for PIA, the way in which those authors used the terms makes it clear that the phrase corresponded to the age of the oldest larva collected from the corpse. It was, therefore, a development-based minimum PMI (PMImin), which refers to …