The presence of bioluminescent system in cockroaches (Zompro and Fritzche 1999) and in Lucihormetica luckae in particular has been contested in reply byMerritt (2013), based on the absence of direct evidence of bioluminescence in the original article (Vrsanský et al. 2012). Main counterarguments were based on (1) a single anecdotal reference to the presence of luminescence among cockroaches, (2) lack of the manifestation of the difference in fluorescence spectra recorded from lanterns and the rest of the body and (3) lack of luminescence among larvae in cultures. The first and last objections in the comment of Merritt (2013) can be true as a single observation reports alight Lucihormetica verrucosa larvae, and, in culture, the adult apparently loses the capability of bioluminescence after some time period (M. Bartos, personal communication 2012). Our effort since the publication of our original article, when we have collected about a hundred of anecdotal records to observations of luminescence of diverse species of Lucihormetica spread throughout the northern half of SouthAmerica, including two records from Ecuador and one record likely corresponding to a closely related species of L . luckae from Brazil (Curuca River, B. Pawlikowska, personal communication 2013), is also irrelevant because such massive evidence should result in a measured data of bioluminescence. Nevertheless, it is important to note that many of these observations were reported by trustworthy researchers and could not be ignored. Also, in the course of the present research, we discovered Lucihormetica with four luminescent lanterns—an addition to 107 species (40 indigenous) recently reported from continental Ecuador (Vidlicka 2013a, b; unpublished) and also a brand new group of luminescent cockroaches. Focus on plausibility of bioluminescence in L. luckae holotype thus lies on autofluorescence (AF) measurements. It is necessary to highlight that we agree with the author that, principally, there is no way to prove the bioluminescence in the species that might be extinct, except for finding a living alight individual. In the course of the original research, we performed measurements which were not included in the figures, but were mentioned in the text and form a base for our interpretations. For the purpose of clarity, we follow the suggestion of Merritt (2013) and provide herein (Fig. 1a–c) a figure explicitly showing a difference in spectra and time-resolved fluorescence characteristics of the holotype. We compare the signals gathered from the lanterns (Fig. 1b, spot, area 1) vs. the rest of the pronotum, which hypothetically might contain a luciferin but not the enzyme (thorax, areas 2 and 3), vs. elytra (area 4). In fluorescence contrast, all the luminescent areas were visually unrecognizable from the lantern system. We agree with Merrit (2013) that an animal body may contain several substances with overlapping emission spectra and of variable concentration. In such complex system, simple fluorescence spectroscopy is not able to properly distinguish differences without biochemical extraction and appropriate numerical methods. As any invasive technique was not possible to apply on the holotype, this was the main reason why we used the most advanced fluorescence recording technique available, based on simultaneous measurement of both spectral and Communicated by: Sven Thatje