Keywords: Blow flies, Larvae, Forensic entomology, Necrophagous, Biotope, Taphonomy, Forensic pathology, Crime scene investigation

Context

This article reviews the current knowledge and potential of different methods involving the use of insects to study cadaver relocation and evaluates their feasibilities.

Insect analysis has been used in legal investigations for decades in a practice now known as forensic entomology (Benecke, 2001). Increased interest in this field since the late 20th century has resulted in more frequent use of forensic entomology in investigations and the development of research on necrophagous species. Previous reviews have compiled and explained the aims and methods of forensic entomology (Catts & Goff, 1992;Byrd & Castner, 2009,Bala, 2015), but some fundamental questions remain unresolved, particularly the potential use of insects as evidence of corpse relocation.

Cadaver decomposition can be altered due to human activity, especially steps taken to hide a cadaver (Haglund & Sorg, 1997;Mann, Bass & Meadows, 1990). Attempts to prevent discovery include cadaver concealment, wrapping, and displacement. Such post-mortem relocation can occur shortly after death or after days of concealment. It can occur over short (e.g., from the room where death occurred to the garden of the house) or long distances. In most cases, the location where the cadaver is hidden is very different from that where death occurred (Reibe et al., 2008). Currently, only a few scientific methods are available to determine whether a crime scene is a primary or secondary scene (Miller Coyle et al., 2005). Because the biology and ecology of necrophagous species can convey information on where and how insects live, forensic manuals and courses often state that insects can be used as evidence of cadaver relocation (Catts & Goff, 1992;Byrd & Castner, 2009;Smith, 1986;Joseph et al., 2011;Mozayani & Noziglia, 2011;Archer & Wallman, 2016;Payne-James & Byard, 2015). However, while this idea is appealing, it may not reflect reality.

It may seem obvious that “if a body is discovered with insects restricted to a habitat or geographic region different from that in which it is discovered, this is an indication that the body may have been moved following death” (Mozayani & Noziglia, 2011). However, most, if not all, European necrophagous species have large distribution areas covering many countries and hundreds of thousands of square kilometers, making the sampling of non-native species within European regions unlikely. Furthermore, while each species has an ecological niche (e.g., forest or synanthropic environment; sunny or shady habitats), individuals can sometimes occur outside the preferred range. Additionally, the long dispersal capability of most necrophagous species, notably blow flies, makes it difficult to relate a given species to a particular place or habitat and thus draw inferences regarding cadaver relocation (Nazni et al., 2005;Bomphrey, Walker & Taylor, 2009,Zabala, Díaz & Saloña-Bordas, 2014).

Temporal separation is another characteristic of necrophagous species. The phenology (cyclic and seasonal phenomena) of blow flies is well known; some species are primarily active during hot weather, whereas others are adapted to cold climates (Voss, Spafford & Dadour, 2009). Under some circumstances, such seasonality might contribute useful information regarding the chronology of cadaver decomposition. However, the presence of larvae of a summer species on a cadaver discovered in the winter does not constitute indisputable evidence of cadaver relocation. In addition, colonization time is strongly dependent on the stage of decomposition. Although it is far more complex than squads (Wyss, Cherix & Mangin, 2013), succession on cadavers has been experimentally shown in several countries and under a variety of conditions (Anderson & Van Laerhoven, 1996;Abd El-Bar & Sawaby, 2011;Abouzied, 2014;Archer, 2014). Divergence from known succession patterns, such as the absence of certain species or unusual associations, might indicate cadaver relocation or concealment. The presence or absence of some instars is also of relevance, especially with regard to wandering larvae or pupae of pioneer species (e.g., Calliphoridae flies), which pupate away from the cadaver and can thus be found after cadaver removal.

Advances in genetics also offer numerous opportunities. Genetic analyses allow the assignment of individuals to local populations or even sub-populations. As noted byTomberlin et al. (2011), such analyses are of great interest in the context of cadaver relocation. In addition, the genetic analysis of gut contents has potential for identifying the cadaver that larvae have been feeding on (Campobasso et al. (2005) andCalvignac-Spencer et al. (2013)). This technique should be developed in the coming years and provide new tools for forensic entomologists and crime scene investigations.

This review analyzes in detail these different approaches. It reveals weaknesses and mistaken beliefs regarding the use of forensic entomology as evidence of cadaver displacement as well as many promising aspects and development opportunities.

Survey methodology

The first phase of the survey involved identifying the magnitude of the issue of cadaver relocation. This phase was performed by searching the main forensic literature published in English over the last 40 years for studies addressing corpse relocation. We found references to this idea in several forensic entomology books and studies (Catts & Goff, 1992;Byrd & Castner, 2009;Smith, 1986;Joseph et al., 2011;Mozayani & Noziglia, 2011;Archer & Wallman, 2016;Payne-James & Byard, 2015), but few case reports (Goff, 1991;Benecke, 1998;Krikken & Huijbregts, 2001). We also found several research articles addressing corpse relocation as a main goal or claiming the potential application of their findings to this topic. From this dataset, we outlined various facets of the problem and gathered them into four main concepts: spatial separation, behavior/development, phenology/colonization time, and molecular analyses. Then, we searched the literature within each of these fields for data on the potential use of different methods to study corpse relocation. The resulting dataset was then analyzed to identify discrepancies or methods with strong application potential.

Due to the number of factors that can affect insect occurrence on corpses (e.g., species, climates, and geography), we focus on the central European area. However, most of the conclusions of this review can be generalized to other locations.

Biogeography of European species of forensic importance

According to the common definition, the distribution of a species is the geographical area within which that species is observed. Species may not be uniformly distributed in this area: variation in local density (e.g., a clumped distribution) is common. However, individuals of a given species are not often observed outside of their distribution area. Online interactive maps can now be found on the web for most European taxa. Many of these databases combine older distribution data and contemporary records from amateur or professional entomologists (Global Biodiversity Information Facility, 2017). Such collaborative work is subject to information gaps and biases, particularly a lack of records; as a result, species distribution maps sometimes reflect the distribution of specialists more than the distribution of species (Fig. 1). In particular, a lack of records affects necrophagous species, which are infrequently sought out and are poorly known among entomologists. As a result, a necrophagous species detected in previously unsampled site may be considered unusual/unexpected while in fact being well within the species’ distribution.

To be informative in determining cadaver relocation, a necrophagous species must have a restricted and well-established distribution. Herein, we list here the few European necrophagous species meeting these criteria.

Two common species of the genusCynomya have restricted distributions within Europe.Cynomya mortuorum, a large, hairy bluebottle fly, can be found across the entire Palearctic region (Braet et al., 2015) (Fig. 1). But this species is rarely reported in central European countries, especially in a forensic context (Rognes, 1991;Starkeby, 2001;Dekeirsschieter et al., 2013;Wyss, Cherix & Mangin, 2013;Braet et al., 2015). Its distribution partially overlaps that ofCynomya cadaverina (Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830), another cold-adapted species of forensic interest (Rognes, 1991;Kurahashi & Kuranishi, 2000).

Two other calliphorid flies,Calliphora loewi andCalliphora subalpina, show a sub-alpine distribution (Faucherre, Cherix & Wyss, 1999;Rognes, 1991). In Europe,Calliphora loewi is mostly found in northern and central Europe, from Siberia and the Caucasus to the Central European Territories (Smith, 1986). Although this northern distribution area suggests that this species might be a good indicator of relocation, its recent discovery in Madeira Island (Portugal) calls its relevance into question (Prado e Castro et al., 2016). Furthermore, although it has a large distribution,Calliphora loewi is often recorded at low abundance, making sampling of this species on a relocated corpse unlikely (Szpila et al., 2014).Calliphora subalpina has a very similar distribution area and is subject to similar limitations (Rognes, 1991).

Chrysomya albiceps is one of the few species that is theoretically usable as an indicator of cadaver relocation in Europe (Grassberger, Friedrich & Reiter, 2003). The species is meridional, common and abundant in southern Europe and in most of the Neotropical, Afrotropical, and Oriental regions (Grassberger, Friedrich & Reiter, 2003). However, while it is mostly found in southern Europe,Chrysomya albiceps has been observed migrating northward during the hot summer months (Wyss, Cherix & Mangin, 2013). This northward expansion of its range has the potential to cause confusion and precludes its use as evidence of cadaver relocation. Similar factors affect the use ofChrysomya megacephala, an Asian fly recently recorded in continental Europe and extending its distribution into the Mediterranean region (Martinez-Sanchez, Marcos-Garcia & Rojo, 2001;Ebejer, 2007;Prado e Castro & García, 2010;Bao & Wells, 2014).

Some additional necrophagous species also have restricted distribution areas, but most of these species are unusual, difficult to identify and poorly documented. Thus, although they may be informative, these insects cannot be regarded as true indicators of cadaver relocation according to the criteria listed byMatuszewski, Szafałowicz & Jarmusz (2013). According to this review, to date, insect distribution area as an indicator of long-distance cadaver relocation appears to be limited in application, with little utility for empirical forensics. However, the distribution ofCynomya mortuorum (Fig. 1) is a great example of an incomplete dataset that could be easily enhanced by forensic case databases and natural history collections targeted on carrion feeding insects. This example also highlights the potential of species distribution models based on environmental niche modeling, e.g., maximum entropy algorithm (MaxEnt) (Szyniszewska & Tatem, 2014;Ali Hanafi-Bojd et al., 2015;Kumar, Yee & Neven, 2016). Such models can provide probabilities of the locations of certain insects in a given area and could be used in a forensic context to determine the likelihood of cadaver relocation.

Species-specific habitats

Many forensic cases involve cadavers that have been transported some kilometers from the crime scene, especially to low-traffic areas such as forests, dumping sites, rivers, or seashores (secondary decomposition sites) (Matuszewski, Szafałowicz & Jarmusz, 2013). As discussed above, such short-distance relocation cannot be elucidated using the presence of foreign necrophagous species. However, the transfer of a cadaver to a new location can alter micro-environmental conditions such as climate, extent of synanthropy, vegetation conditions, and indoor/outdoor location. The population of necrophagous insects at the secondary decomposition site may therefore differ from that of the initial (primary) environment.

The effect of habitat on the abundance of certain species is well established (Hwang & Turner, 2005;Brundage, Bros & Honda, 2011). However, published data regarding species-specific habitats vary, highlighting that such preferences are not fixed and often vary locally. The biology of necrophagous species contributes to this variability. To successfully reproduce, adult females must find suitable carrion for their offspring. However, the occurrence of cadavers is by definition unpredictable because death is temporally and spatially random. Accordingly, all necrophagous species have an efficient olfactory sense that allows individuals to quickly detect and locate cadavers. As noted byMacLeod & Donnelly (1957b), blow flies are powerful and active flies capable of dispersing over large distances (several kilometers per day).

Furthermore, most studies in forensic entomology use simple descriptors (e.g., forest, sunny, and indoor) without taking into account the surroundings or variability within categories (e.g., forest type or city size). Additionally, larger-scale effects and interactions of parameters (e.g., temperature and city size) are typically not considered (Zabala, Díaz & Saloña-Bordas, 2014). In a 1957 study, MacLeod and Donnelly stated that “there is nothing to indicate whether the non-uniform distribution of the adult (flies) population is due to the faunal, floral, vegetation-structural or edaphic element of the environment, or to some combination of these.” More than fifty years later,Zabala, Díaz & Saloña-Bordas (2014) concluded that, except for the summer abundance ofCalliphora vomitoria, blow fly community composition could not be used as evidence of cadaver relocation, particularly in heterogeneous and densely populated areas. These authors also noted that conclusions based on species-specific habitat preferences should be drawn only on the basis of local studies (Davies, 1990;Anderson & Van Laerhoven, 1996;Hwang & Turner, 2005;Brundage, Bros & Honda, 2011). The following sub-section focuses on specific habitat characteristics that may be of relevance in determining the primary deposition site of a cadaver.

Conclusions related to species-specific habitats

As described herein in detail, the associations of species to specific habitats can be used to infer cadaver relocation from one habitat to another (Table 1). However, whereas entomological evidence related to species-specific habitats may help support or reject hypotheses regarding cadaver relocation, inferences unsupported by local data are typically not appropriate. Currently, most published information is based on restricted datasets; future work should focus on obtaining large amounts of data at the local scale. For example,a posteriori analysis of forensic entomology case databases could provide substantial information on the biology of necrophagous species (e.g., species found on indoor vs. outdoor corpses, seasonal prevalence of specific species) (Dekeirsschieter et al., 2013;Disney et al., 2014;Charabidze et al., 2014,2016;Syamsa et al., 2017). Back-testing field experiments should always be performed to verify the local applicability of interpretations.

Non-necrophagous species can also provide evidence of cadaver relocation. As reported byGoff (2011): “If a body is outdoors near or under vegetation, it is possible for insects associated with that vegetation to move onto the body, although typically not to feed or lay eggs.” However, as these insects are not directly associated with the cadaver, it may be difficult to conclude that they were moved together with it. Furthermore, the probability of having a non-necrophagous species (1) moving onto a cadaver, (2) being moved with the cadaver, (3) being sampled and identified at the secondary site, and (4) being located outside its natural range is likely very low. We have found no report of such a case in the forensic literature.

Adult behavior: colonization and egg laying

Egg laying on a cadaver is affected by climatic conditions, species behavior and cadaver accessibility: in theory, these parameters could be used to infer displacement between places with different climactic conditions.Krikken & Huijbregts (2001) reported a neat but questionable example of this concept. Based on the unverified assumption thatLucilia sericata females “oviposit on high temperature surfaces,” the authors concluded that a cadaver discovered in a room had first been located outdoors in a warm and sunny place. However, althoughL. sericata is heliophilic, it can lay eggs indoors.

Though a species-specific minimum temperature is required for egg laying (Hédouin et al., 1996;Faucherre, Cherix & Wyss, 1999;Ody, Bulling & Barnes, 2017), several other weather parameters, such as the levels of sun, wind and rain, can also have effects on egg laying. Fly displacement and egg laying primarily occur during the daytime (Wooldridge, Scrase & Wall, 2007;Greenberg, 1990b;Benecke, 1998;Wells et al., 2001). Accordingly, the presence of numerous egg batches on a cadaver located in a dark place suggest the possibility of cadaver relocation. However,Faucherre, Cherix & Wyss (1999) reported a case whereCalliphora vicina females had flown to and oviposited on a cadaver in a 10-m-deep cave located in the Swiss Jura mountains, andGemmellaro (2016) recently showed the ability of some calliphorid flies, especiallyCalliphora vicina, to reach meat-baited traps placed inside volcanic caves.

Some species are known to oviposit in specific areas of a cadaver. For example, calliphorid flies preferentially deposit egg batches on the face (nostrils, mouth, and eyes), whereas most silphid beetles lay their eggs underneath the cadaver (Smith, 1986). However, the region of oviposition is strongly affected by the extent of cadaver decomposition or wounds, the presence of other larvae and species, collective behavior (egg aggregation) and environmental characteristics (Charabidze et al., 2015). On the other hand, strong evidence of cadaver relocation is provided by the presence of eggs, especially those of large calliphorids, in inaccessible places, such as underneath a cadaver. Such a case was analyzed in France (D. Charabidze, 2013, unpublished data): the presence of numerousLucilia sericata andCalliphora vicina egg batches in the folds of clothing underneath a cadaver served as evidence of the secondary reversal of the cadaver by drug addicts searching for money.

Larval development, wandering larvae, and pupae

Fly larvae live on the cadaver and are thus very resistant to cadaver relocation. In contrast, the probability of transferring insects present in the soil or below the cadaver (wandering larvae, pupae, and most silphid larvae) along with the cadaver is very low. Accordingly, considerable information can be obtained from the presence and location of wandering larvae and pupae/puparia around a cadaver.

During the post-feeding stage, the larvae of several blow fly species (with the notable exception of Chrysomyinae species) begin to migrate from the cadaver to pupate in a protected location away from predators (Gomes, Godoy & Von Zuben, 2006).Greenberg (1990a) observed that more than 80% of post-feeding larvae ofLucilia sericata andCalliphora vicina removed of the cadaver to a distance up to 8 m away. In contrast, only 2% ofPhormia regina, 10% ofMuscina stabulans, and 16% ofChrysomya rufifacies larvae moved away from the cadaver. However,Lewis & Benbow (2011) reported cases ofen masse post-feeding dispersal ofPhormia regina larvae away from swine carcasses in experiments conducted during the summer. This unexpected observation illustrate the need for careful case-by-case analysis before drawing conclusions.

The presence of necrophagous blow fly pupae and puparia (or dead adult flies) in an empty place can be evidence of the former presence of a cadaver. This question was extensively discussed during the famous Casey Anthony trial (USA) (Lohr, 2011), in which a first forensic entomologist relied on the presence of numerousMegaselia scalaris larvae, pupae and adults in a car trunk as evidence of the former presence of a cadaver. However, an expert witness for the defense showed that the same insects could have come from a trash bag discovered in the trunk. As the gut contents of insect samples were not tested for DNA, there was no evidence to support the assertion that the insects originated on human remains (Campobasso et al., 2005, see the molecular analysis section of this review).Benecke (2004) described a similar case. The corpse of a man was discovered in the trunk of his car. Only a few larvae and pupae were sampled on the cadaver, but no pupae was found in the gaps of the trunk. The author postulates that the cadaver was stored in another place until post-feeding larvae left the corpse. Afterward, the corpse was moved into the car trunk, explaining why only a few maggots were found on the cadaver. Conversely,Krikken & Huijbregts (2001) reported a skeleton found during the winter in a small forest with “numerous empty pupal cocoons ofProtophormia terraenovae under the bones.” Based on the presence of these puparia, the authors concluded that the entire decomposition process had taken place in that same place. However, as this species can pupate in clothes or on decomposing tissues, it is possible that the pupae had been moved together with the cadaver. Lastly,Mariani et al. (2014) observed that blow fly and muscid larvae buried with a cadaver ultimately left their food source to move to their typical pupariation depths. According to those authors, the presence of large numbers of post-feeding blow fly larvae without a cadaver in the vicinity could indicate that a body may have been buried nearby rather than relocated.

Cadaver relocation can sometimes be characterized by discrepancies between local temperature and larval development. For example, the presence of third-instarLucilia sericata individuals on a cadaver located in a cold location (e.g., a cellar with a constant 9–10 °C temperature) would suggest relocation. However, such discrepancies often result from changes in microclimate (e.g., direct sun exposure vs. shade), larval-mass effect or conservation of the samples (e.g., high temperature during transport) rather than from relocation. Cadaver relocation should be considered as a possibility only in the absence of these other influences.

Lastly, the presence of crushed pupae/imago on or under the cadaver can be indicative of relocation. We observed the presence of flattened pupae or newly hatched flies (flat, dry individuals with a still-visible ptilinum) directly under the cadaver in several forensic cases. In these cases, relocation of the cadaver had likely occurred after numerous flies had started to emerge, and some specimens were compressed under the cadaver during or after moving. If such specimens are observed on site (before the cadaver is moved by the forensic team), relocation after larval pupation might have occurred.

Table 2. Effects of time spent in the first (columns) and secondary (lines) decomposition sites on the presence/stage of necrophagous entomofauna.

Cuticular hydrocarbons

The ability to identify forensic species at different developmental stages and their associations with local populations can be crucial in determining whether a body was moved from a crime scene. Simple molecular analyses concern cuticular hydrocarbon profiles. Insects form a thin, epicuticular layer of wax consisting of free lipids, which is a class of compounds that includes hydrocarbons, alcohols, fatty acids, waxes, acylglycerides, phospholipids, and glycolipids (Gibbs & Elizabeth, 1998). The cuticular hydrocarbon phenotype is biologically very stable and almost entirely determined by genotype (Wells & Stevens, 2010;Pechal et al., 2014).Byrne et al. (1995) showed that the cuticular hydrocarbons of three geographically distinct populations ofPhormia regina are differentiable. However, some local populations can interbreed with adjacent populations, and the minimal interval over which adjacent populations can be considered distinct remains unknown. Accordingly, this method could be used to identify the presence of a non-local population on a cadaver (which suggests cadaver relocation) but will not be informative in cases of short-distance relocation (Byrne et al., 1995). More research on this promising topic should be conducted in the future (Tomberlin et al., 2011).

Genetics of insect populations

DNA-based identification is valuable for identifying adult insects of forensic interest as well as immature stages, cuticle fragments, and puparia (Sperling, Anderson & Hickey, 1994;Zehner et al., 2004;Guo et al., 2010;Li et al., 2010;Wells & Sperling, 2001;Mazzanti et al., 2010;Xinghua et al. 2010;Guo et al., 2011;Zaidi et al., 2011;Jordaens et al., 2013;Meiklejohn, Wallman & Dowton, 2013;Park et al., 2013,Sonet et al., 2013). If post-mortem changes are suspected, relocation can be evidenced by determining the relationships between insects sampled at the initial and secondary sites (Picard, Villet & Wells, 2012). Several studies have highlighted significant genetic differences between populations of the same species within (Hall et al., 2001;Boehme et al., 2013;Desmyter & Gosselin, 2009;Sonet et al., 2013) and among continents (Hall et al., 2001;Lyra et al., 2005). To identify genetic variation among populations, methods such as simple conformation polymorphism strand analysis (SSCP) and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) are available. However, kinship analyses require a solid genetic database that encompasses variability among geographical sites, the development of which requires thorough field sampling, precise morphological identification and the complete genetic characterization of each collected individual.

Databases such as GenBank and theGerman Barcode of Life (2017) have been used to detect genetic variation within local populations of the same species (Wells & Stevens, 2010). Using SSCP analysis, inter-population differences have been detected between African and North American populations of the common housefly,Musca domestica (Marquez & Krafsur, 2003).Harvey et al. (2003) found differences in the COI gene between South African and Australian populations of two species of forensic interest,Chrysomya rufifacies andLucilia cuprina. Furthermore,Desmyter & Gosselin (2009) andBoehme, Amendt & Zehner (2012) found sequence differences betweenPhormia regina specimens from North America and Europe.Jordaens et al. (2013) confirmed this divergence in the COI gene betweenP. regina populations with newly sequenced material. However, sequence divergence within each continent was only ca. 0.4%, making genetic differentiation of local strains difficult to detect. At the local scale, blow flies show genetic isolation by time but not distance. Scientific projects dedicated to building datasets that reflect the diversity of necrophagous entomofauna at the European scale are currently expanding and are expected to address this topic in the near future (Sonet et al., 2013;Geiger et al., 2016).

Using AFLP surveys, Picard and Wells observed that groups of adultLucilia sericata andPhormia regina individuals trapped together on a bait were predominantly composed of related individuals, with a level of genetic diversity lower than that observed at a larger scale (Picard & Wells, 2009,2010). This pattern is also observed in gravid females and is likely exhibited by larvae, suggesting that the population genetic structure of adults could be extended to the larval population growing on a cadaver. Such a finding would support the potential use of genetic tests to infer post-mortem relocation of a cadaver: for example, a larva found in one location might belong to a larval population growing on a cadaver in a second location.Faulds, Wells & Picard (2014) confirmed the validity of the AFLP method, finding that kinship testing based on AFLP data yielded adequate kinship estimates with limited error. As noted by those authors, this type of analysis can be performed on any life stage of the insect and on any species. Regarding species of interest in forensic entomology, AFLP data are currently available forPhormia regina,Lucilia sericata, andChrysomya megacephala (Picard & Wells, 2009,2010;Bao & Wells, 2014). AFLP analysis of full sibship is a promising method for the detection of post-mortem relocation.

Many interesting ideas and examples can be found in the literature on wildlife genetic geographic origin assignment. DNA testing, which relies on the assignment of an unknown sample to its genetic population of origin, has become a widespread tool in wildlife forensic science. The excellent review byOgden & Linacre (2015) provides not only examples and detailed methods of DNA testing, but also valuable consideration on its use in court. As noted in the review, the availability and quality of reference data are of paramount importance and are currently the main disincentive of the application of DNA-based methods in the field of forensic entomology.

Identification of human DNA

Another contribution of molecular analysis is the identification of human DNA in the digestive tract of the larvae. This method can be used to determine the genetic profile of the victim (Campobasso, Di Vella & Introna, 2001;Wells & Sperling, 2001;Benecke & Wells, 2002) and can be used as evidence in the absence of a cadaver (Gaudry et al., 2007). Indeed, the presence of necrophagous larvae or pupae in an otherwise barren location can suggest the former presence of a cadaver. If genetic analysis of the gut contents of larvae reveals the victim’s DNA, entomological evidence can be used to infer relocation (Wells et al., 2001;Lohr, 2011). In 2001, Wells et al. showed that mitochondrial DNA sequences can be obtained from the dissected gut of a maggot that had fed on human tissue. InChavez-Briones et al. (2013) reported the first forensic case of victim identification from human DNA isolated from the gastrointestinal tract of necrophagous larvae.Njau et al. (2016) showed that DNA analysis could be used to determine whether the larvae sampled on a cadaver were introduced from an alternative food source (e.g., a dead animal or a trash can near the cadaver). However, due to the rapid degradation of DNA by gut digestive enzymes, such analyses are limited to two days post-feeding (Picard & Wells, 2009;Charabidze, Hedouin & Gosset, 2013). Such restriction may change in a near future: a recent paper byPilli et al. (2016) successfully used next generation sequencing to obtain a human profile from the gastrointestinal tract of head lice. Additionally more striking evidence of the potential of this method was provided byMarchetti et al. (2013) andMadra, Konwerski & Matuszewski (2014). They used short tandem repeat (STR) analysis to extract and type human DNA from empty puparia collected in two forensic cases. As puparia cases are highly durable, they offer a unique opportunity to indicate cadaver relocation a long time after the event.

Competing Interests

Author Contributions

Data Availability

• Abd El-Bar & Sawaby (2011).Abd El-Bar MM, Sawaby RF. A preliminary investigation of insect colonization and succession on remains of rabbits treated with an organophosphate insecticide in El-Qalyubiya Governorate of Egypt. Forensic Science International. 2011;208(1–3):e26–e30. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.10.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Abdel-Shafy et al. (2009).Abdel-Shafy S, El-Khateeb RM, Soliman MM, Abdel-Aziz MM. The efficacy of some wild medicinal plant extracts on the survival and development of third instar larvae of Chrysomyia albiceps (Wied) (Diptera: Calliphoridae) Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2009;41(8):1741–1753. doi: 10.1007/s11250-009-9373-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Abouzied (2014).Abouzied EM. Insect colonization and succession on rabbit carcasses in southwestern mountains of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2014;51(6):1168–1174. doi: 10.1603/me13181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Ali Hanafi-Bojd et al. (2015).Ali Hanafi-Bojd A, Yaghoobi-Ershadi MR, Haghdoost AA, Akhavan AA, Rassi Y, Karimi A, Charrahy Z. Modeling the distribution of cutaneous leishmaniasis vectors (Psychodidae: Phlebotominae) in Iran: a potential transmission in disease prone areas. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2015;52(4):557–565. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjv058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Anderson & Hobischak (2004).Anderson GS, Hobischak NR. Decomposition of carrion in the marine environment in British Columbia, Canada. International Journal of Legal Medicine. 2004;118(4):206–209. doi: 10.1007/s00414-004-0447-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Anderson & Van Laerhoven (1996).Anderson GS, Van Laerhoven SL. Initial studies on insect succession on carrion in southwestern British Columbia. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 1996;41(4):617–625. doi: 10.1520/JFS13964J. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• Anderson (2011).Anderson GS. Comparison of decomposition rates and faunal colonization of carrion in indoor and outdoor environments. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2011;56(1):136–142. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01539.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Archer (2014).Archer M. Comparative analysis of insect succession data from Victoria (Australia) using summary statistics versus preceding mean ambient temperature models. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2014;59(2):404–412. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12345. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Archer & Wallman (2016).Archer MS, Wallman JF. Context effects in forensic entomology and use of sequential unmasking in casework. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2016;61(5):1270–1277. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.13139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bachmann & Simmons (2010).Bachmann J, Simmons T. The influence of preburial insect access on the decomposition rate. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2010;55(4):893–900. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01403.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bala (2015).Bala M. Beetles and forensic entomology: a comprehensive review. Journal of Entomological Research. 2015;39(4):293–302. doi: 10.5958/0974-4576.2015.00036.5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• Balme et al. (2012).Balme GR, Denning SS, Cammack JA, Watson DW. Blow flies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) survive burial: evidence of ascending vertical dispersal. Forensic Science International. 2012;216(1–3):e1–e4. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.07.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bao & Wells (2014).Bao F, Wells JD. Population genetic structure of an invasive forensically important insect. Electrophoresis. 2014;35(21–22):3193–3200. doi: 10.1002/elps.201400108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Barrios & Wolff (2011).Barrios M, Wolff M. Initial study of arthropods succession and pig carrion decomposition in two freshwater ecosystems in the Colombian Andes. Forensic Science International. 2011;212(1–3):164–172. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.06.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Baz et al. (2007).Baz A, Cifrián B, Díaz-äranda LM, Martín-Vega D. The distribution of adult blow-flies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) along an altitudinal gradient in Central Spain. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France. 2007;43(3):289–296. doi: 10.1080/00379271.2007.10697524. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• Benecke (1998).Benecke M. Six forensic entomology cases: description and commentary. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 1998;43(4):797–805. doi: 10.1520/JFS14309J. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Benecke (2001).Benecke M. A brief history of forensic entomology. Forensic Science International. 2001;120(1–2):2–14. doi: 10.1016/S0379-0738(01)00409-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Benecke (2004).Benecke M. Arthropods and corpses. Forensic Pathology Reviews. 2004;2:207–240. doi: 10.1385/1-59259-872-2:207. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• Benecke & Wells (2002).Benecke M, Wells J. DNA techniques for forensic entomology. In: Byrd JH, Castner JL, editors. Forensic Entomology: The Utility of Arthropods in Legal Investigations. Second Edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2002. pp. 341–352. [Google Scholar]
• Boehme, Amendt & Zehner (2012).Boehme P, Amendt J, Zehner R. The use of COI barcodes for molecular identification of forensically important fly species in Germany. Parasitology Research. 2012;110(6):2325–2332. doi: 10.1007/s00436-011-2767-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Boehme et al. (2013).Boehme P, Spahn P, Amendt J, Zehner R. Differential gene expression during metamorphosis: a promising approach for age estimation of forensically important Calliphora vicina pupae (Diptera: Calliphoridae) International Journal of Legal Medicine. 2013;127:243–249. doi: 10.1007/s00414-012-0699-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bomphrey, Walker & Taylor (2009).Bomphrey RJ, Walker SM, Taylor GK. The typical flight performance of blowflies: measuring the normal performance envelope of Calliphora vicina using a novel Corner-cube arena. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(11):e7852. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007852. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bourel et al. (1999).Bourel B, Martin-Bouyer L, Hedouin V, Cailliez JC, Derout D, Gosset D. Necrophilous insect succession on rabbit carrion in sand dune habitats in Northern France. Journal of Medical Entomology. 1999;36(4):420–425. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/36.4.420. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bourel et al. (2004).Bourel B, Tournel G, Hédouin V, Gosset D. Entomofauna of buried bodies in Northern France. International Journal of Legal Medicine. 2004;118(4):215–220. doi: 10.1007/s00414-004-0449-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Braet et al. (2015).Braet Y, Bourguignon L, Vanpoucke S, Drome V, Hubrecht F. New developmental data for Cynomya mortuorum (L., 1761) in Belgium (Diptera: Calliphoridae) Forensic Science International. 2015;252:29–32. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.04.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Brundage, Bros & Honda (2011).Brundage A, Bros S, Honda JY. Seasonal and habitat abundance and distribution of some forensically important blow flies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) in Central California. Forensic Science International. 2011;212(1–3):115–120. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.05.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Byrd & Castner (2009).Byrd JH, Castner JL. Forensic Entomology: The Utility of Arthropods in Legal Investigations. Second Edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2009. [Google Scholar]
• Byrne et al. (1995).Byrne AL, Camann MA, Cyr TL, Catts EP, Espelie KE. Forensic implications of biochemical differences among geographic populations of the black blow fly, Phormia regina (Meigen) Journal of Forensic Sciences. 1995;40(3):372–377. doi: 10.1520/JFS13789J. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Cainé et al. (2009).Cainé LM, Real FC, Saloña-Bordas MI, Pancorbo MM, Lima G, Magalhães T, Pinheiro F. DNA typing of Diptera collected from human corpses in Portugal. Forensic Science International. 2009;184(1–3):e21–e23. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2008.10.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Calvignac-Spencer et al. (2013).Calvignac-Spencer S, Merkel K, Kutzner N, Kühl H, Boesch C, Kappeler PM, Metzger S, Schubert G, Leendertz FH. Carrion fly-derived DNA as a tool for comprehensive and cost-effective assessment of mammalian biodiversity. Molecular Ecology. 2013;22(4):915–924. doi: 10.1111/mec.12183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Cammack et al. (2016).Cammack JA, Cohen AC, Kreitlow KL, Roe RM, Watson DW. Decomposition of concealed and exposed porcine remains in the North Carolina Piedmont. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2016;53(1):67–75. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjv183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Campobasso, Di Vella & Introna (2001).Campobasso CP, Di Vella G, Introna F. Factors affecting decomposition and Diptera colonization. Forensic Science International. 2001;120(1–2):18–27. doi: 10.1016/S0379-0738(01)00411-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Campobasso et al. (2005).Campobasso CP, Linville JG, Wells JD, Introna F. Forensic genetic analysis of insect gut contents. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. 2005;26:161–165. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Catts & Goff (1992).Catts EP, Goff ML. Forensic entomology in criminal investigations. Annual Review of Entomology. 1992;37(1):253–272. doi: 10.1146/annurev.en.37.010192.001345. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Centeno, Maldonado & Oliva (2002).Centeno N, Maldonado M, Oliva A. Seasonal patterns of arthropods occurring on sheltered and unsheltered pig carcasses in Buenos Aires Province (Argentina) Forensic Science International. 2002;126(1):63–70. doi: 10.1016/S0379-0738(02)00037-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Charabidze et al. (2014).Charabidze D, Colard T, Vincent B, Pasquerault T, Hedouin V. Involvement of larder beetles (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) on human cadavers: a review of 81 forensic cases. International Journal of Legal Medicine. 2014;128(6):1021–1030. doi: 10.1007/s00414-013-0945-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Charabidze et al. (2015).Charabidze D, Depeme A, Devigne C, Hedouin V. Do necrophagous blowflies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) lay their eggs in wounds? Experimental data and implications for forensic entomology. Forensic Science International. 2015;253:71–75. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.05.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Charabidze, Hedouin & Gosset (2013).Charabidze D, Hedouin V, Gosset D. Discontinuous foraging behavior of necrophagous Lucilia sericata (Meigen 1826) (Diptera Calliphoridae) larvae. Journal of Insect Physiology. 2013;59(3):325–331. doi: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2012.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Charabidze, Hedouin & Gosset (2015).Charabidze D, Hedouin V, Gosset D. An experimental investigation into the colonization of concealed cadavers by necrophagous blowflies. Journal of Insect Science. 2015;15(1):149. doi: 10.1093/jisesa/iev129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Charabidze et al. (2016).Charabidze D, Vincent B, Pasquerault T, Hedouin V. The biology and ecology of Necrodes littoralis, a species of forensic interest in Europe. International Journal of Legal Medicine. 2016;130(1):273–280. doi: 10.1007/s00414-015-1253-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Chauvet et al. (2008).Chauvet B, Dourel L, Vincent B, Pasquerault T, Gaudry E. Répartition des Nicrophorus F., 1775 récoltés sur des cadavres humains (Coleoptera: Silphidae) L’Entomologiste. 2008;64:15–20. [Google Scholar]
• Chavez-Briones et al. (2013).Chavez-Briones ML, Hernandez-Cortes R, Diaz-Torres P, Niderhauser-Garcia A, Ancer-Rodriguez J, Jaramillo-Rangel G, Ortega-Martinez M. Identification of human remains by DNA analysis of the gastrointestinal contents of fly larvae. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2013;58(1):248–250. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2012.02279.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Davies (1990).Davies L. Species composition and larval habitats of blowfly (Calliphoridae) populations in upland areas in England and Wales. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 1990;4(1):61–68. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.1990.tb00261.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Davies (1999).Davies L. Seasonal and spatial changes in blowfly production from small and large carcasses at Durham in lowland northeast England. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 1999;13(3):245–251. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2915.1999.00135.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• de Souza & Von Zuben (2012).de Souza CR, Von Zuben CJ. Diversity and synanthropy of Calliphoridae (Diptera) in the region of Rio Claro, SP, Brazil. Neotropical Entomology. 2012;41(3):243–248. doi: 10.1007/s13744-012-0037-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• de Souza & Von Zuben (2016).de Souza CR, Von Zuben CJ. Synanthropy of Sarcophagidae (Diptera) in southeastern Brazil. Neotropical Entomology. 2016;45(6):637–641. doi: 10.1007/s13744-016-0411-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Dekeirsschieter et al. (2013).Dekeirsschieter J, Frederickx C, Verheggen FJ, Boxho P, Haubruge E. Forensic entomology investigations from Doctor Marcel Leclercq (1924–2008): a review of cases from 1969 to 2005. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2013;50(5):935–954. doi: 10.1603/ME12097. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Dekeirsschieter et al. (2011).Dekeirsschieter J, Verheggen FJ, Haubruge E, Brostaux Y. Carrion beetles visiting pig carcasses during early spring in urban, forest and agricultural biotopes of Western Europe. Journal of Insect Science. 2011;11(1):73. doi: 10.1673/031.011.7301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Desmyter & Gosselin (2009).Desmyter S, Gosselin M. COI sequence variability between Chrysomyinae of forensic interest. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2009;3(2):89–95. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2008.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Disney (2008).Disney RH. Natural history of the scuttle fly, Megaselia scalaris. Annual Review of Entomology. 2008;53(1):39–60. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.53.103106.093415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Disney (2012).Disney RH. Scuttle Flies: The Phoridae. Scarborough: Chapman & Hall; 2012. [Google Scholar]
• Disney et al. (2014).Disney RH, Garcia-Rojo A, Lindström A, Manlove JD. Further occurrences of Dohrniphora cornuta (Bigot) (Diptera, Phoridae) in forensic cases indicate likely importance of this species in future cases. Forensic Science International. 2014;241:e20–e22. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.05.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Ebejer (2007).Ebejer MJ. The occurrence of Chrysomya megacephala (Fabricius) (Diptera, Brachycera) in Malta and records of other Calliphoridae from the Maltese Islands. Entomologists Monthly Magazine. 2007;143:165–170. [Google Scholar]
• Erzinçlioğlu & Bunker (1996).Erzinçlioğlu Z, Bunker S. Blowflies. Slough: The Richmond Publishing Co. Ltd; 1996. [Google Scholar]
• Faucherre, Cherix & Wyss (1999).Faucherre J, Cherix D, Wyss C. Behavior of Calliphora vicina (Diptera, Calliphoridae) under extreme conditions. Journal of Insect Behavior. 1999;12:687–690. doi: 10.1023/a:1020931804597. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• Faulds, Wells & Picard (2014).Faulds KJ, Wells JD, Picard CJ. Verification of AFLP kinship methods of entomological evidence by sequencing. Forensic Science International. 2014;245:58–62. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.09.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Fisher, Wall & Ashworth (1998).Fisher P, Wall R, Ashworth JR. Attraction of the sheep blowfly, Lucilia sericata (Diptera: Calliphoridae) to carrion bait in the field. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 1998;88(6):611. doi: 10.1017/s0007485300054274. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• Frost et al. (2010).Frost C, Braig H, Amendt J, Perotti M. Indoor arthropods of forensic importance: insects associated with indoor decomposition and mites as indoor markers. In: Amendt J, Goff ML, Campobasso CP, Grassberger M, editors. Current Concepts in Forensic Entomology. Netherlands: Springer; 2010. pp. 93–108. [Google Scholar]
• Gaudry et al. (2007).Gaudry E, Dourel L, Chauvet B, Vincent B, Pasquerault T. L’entomologie légale lorsque insecte rime avec indice. Revue Francophone des Laboratoires. 2007;2007(392):23–32. doi: 10.1016/S1773-035X(06)80636-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• Gaudry (2010).Gaudry E. The insects colonisation of buried remains. In: Amendt J, Goff ML, Campobasso CP, Grassberger M, editors. Current Concepts in Forensic Entomology. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010. pp. 273–311. [Google Scholar]
• Global Biodiversity Information Facility (2017).Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) Database, Cynomya mortuorum Distribution Map accessed via GBIF.org. 2017.http://www.gbif.org/species/1502142. [9 September 2016].http://www.gbif.org/species/1502142
• Geiger et al. (2016).Geiger MF, Astrin JJ, Borsch T, Burkhardt U, Grobe P, Hand R, Hausmann A, Hohberg K, Krogmann L, Lutz M, Monje C, Misof B, Morinière J, Müller K, Pietsch S, Quandt D, Rulik B, Scholler M, Traunspurger W, Haszprunar G, Wägele W. How to tackle the molecular species inventory for an industrialized nation-lessons from the first phase of the German Barcode of Life initiative GBOL (2012–2015) Genome. 2016;59(9):661–670. doi: 10.1139/gen-2015-0185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Gemmellaro (2016).Gemmellaro M. European Association for Forensic Entomology Conference. Budapest: Hungary; 2016. First survey insects of forensic importance in Sicily and it’s volcanic caves. [Google Scholar]
• German Barcode of Life (2017).German Barcode of Life Deutschlands Fauna und Flora in einer einzigartigen genetischen bibliothek. 2017.https://www.bolgermany.de/https://www.bolgermany.de/
• Gibbs & Elizabeth (1998).Gibbs AG, Elizabeth LC. The biology of lipids: integrative and comparative perspectives. American Zoologist. 1998;38(2):265–267. doi: 10.1093/icb/38.2.265. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• Goff (1991).Goff ML. Comparison of insect species associated with decomposing remains recovered inside dwellings and outdoors on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 1991;36(3):748–753. doi: 10.1520/JFS13085J. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Goff (2011).Goff ML. Forensic entomology. In: Mozayani A, Noziglia C, editors. The Forensic Laboratory Handbook Procedures and Practice. Totowa: Humana Press; 2011. pp. 447–478. [Google Scholar]
• Gomes, Godoy & Von Zuben (2006).Gomes L, Godoy WA, Von Zuben CJ. A review of postfeeding larval dispersal in blowflies: implications for forensic entomology. Naturwissenschaften. 2006;93(5):207–215. doi: 10.1007/s00114-006-0082-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Grassberger, Friedrich & Reiter (2003).Grassberger M, Friedrich E, Reiter C. The blowfly Chrysomya albiceps (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae) as a new forensic indicator in Central Europe. International Journal of Legal Medicine. 2003;117:75–81. doi: 10.1007/s00414-002-0323-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Greco, Brandmayr & Bonacci (2014).Greco S, Brandmayr P, Bonacci T. Synanthropy and temporal variability of Calliphoridae living in Cosenza (Calabria, southern Italy) Journal of Insect Science. 2014;14(1):216. doi: 10.1093/jisesa/ieu078. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Greenberg (1990a).Greenberg B. Behavior of postfeeding larvae of some Calliphoridae and a muscid (Diptera) Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 1990a;83(6):1210–1214. doi: 10.1093/aesa/83.6.1210. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• Greenberg (1990b).Greenberg B. Nocturnal oviposition behavior of blow flies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) Journal of Medical Entomology. 1990b;27(5):807–810. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/27.5.807. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Gunn & Bird (2011).Gunn A, Bird J. The ability of the blowflies Calliphora vomitoria (Linnaeus), Calliphora vicina (Rob-Desvoidy) and Lucilia sericata (Meigen) (Diptera: Calliphoridae) and the muscid flies Muscina stabulans (Fallen) and Muscina prolapsa (Harris) (Diptera: Muscidae) to colonise buried remains. Forensic Science International. 2011;207(1–3):198–204. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.10.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Guo et al. (2011).Guo Y, Cai J, Chang Y, Li X, Liu Q, Wang X, Wang X, Zhong M, Wen J, Wang J. Identification of forensically important sarcophagid flies (Diptera: Sarcophagidae) in China, based on COI and 16S rDNA gene sequences. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2011;56(6):1534–1540. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01882.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Guo et al. (2010).Guo YD, Cai JF, Li X, Xiong F, Su RN, Chen FL, Liu QL, Wang XH, Chang YF, Zhong M, Wang X, Wen JF. Identification of the forensically important sarcophagid flies Boerttcherisca peregrina, Parasarcophaga albiceps and Parasarcophaga dux (Diptera: Sarcophagidae) based on COII gene in China. Tropical Biomedicine. 2010;27:451–460. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Haglund & Sorg (1997).Haglund W, Sorg M. Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1997. [Google Scholar]
• Hall et al. (2001).Hall MJ, Edge W, Testa JM, Adams ZJ, Ready PD. Old world screwworm fly, Chrysomya bezziana, occurs as two geographical races. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 2001;15(4):393–402. doi: 10.1046/j.0269-283x.2001.00327.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Harvey et al. (2003).Harvey ML, Mansell MW, Villet MH, Dadour IR. Molecular identification of some forensically important blowflies of southern Africa and Australia. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 2003;17(4):363–369. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2003.00452.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hédouin et al. (1996).Hédouin V, Martin-Bouyer L, Bourel B, Revuelta E, Gosset D. Influence de la température sur la ponte des diptères: application à l’entomologie médico-légale. Journal de Médecine Légale Droit Médical. 1996;39:153–157. [Google Scholar]
• Holdaway (1933).Holdaway FG. Differential behaviour of Lucilia sericata Meig. and Lucilia caesar L. in natural environments. Journal of Animal Ecology. 1933;2(2):263–265. doi: 10.2307/962. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• Horenstein et al. (2007).Horenstein MB, Linhares AX, Rosso B, García MD. Species composition and seasonal succession of saprophagous calliphorids in a rural area of Córdoba: Argentina. Biological Research. 2007;40(2):163–171. doi: 10.4067/S0716-97602007000200007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Huchet & Greenberg (2010).Huchet JB, Greenberg B. Flies, Mochicas and burial practices: a case study from Huaca de la Luna, Peru. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2010;37(11):2846–2856. doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2010.06.025. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• Huchet (2014).Huchet J-B. Insect remains and their traces: relevant fossil witnesses in the reconstruction of past funerary practices. Anthropologie. 2014;52:329–346. [Google Scholar]
• Hwang & Turner (2005).Hwang CC, Turner BD. Spatial and temporal variability of necrophagous Diptera from urban to rural areas. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 2005;19(4):379–391. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2005.00583.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hwang & Turner (2009).Hwang CC, Turner BD. Small-scaled geographical variation in life-history traits of the blowfly Calliphora vicina between rural and urban populations. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 2009;132(3):218–224. doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2009.00891.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• Isiche, Hillerton & Nowell (1992).Isiche J, Hillerton JE, Nowell F. Colonization of the mouse cadaver by flies in southern England. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 1992;6(2):168–170. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.1992.tb00597.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Johnson (1980).Johnson DH. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology. 1980;61(1):65–71. doi: 10.2307/1937156. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• Jordaens et al. (2013).Jordaens K, Sonet G, Richet R, Dupont E, Braet Y, Desmyter S. Identification of forensically important Sarcophaga species (Diptera: Sarcophagidae) using the mitochondrial COI gene. International Journal of Legal Medicine. 2013;127(2):491–504. doi: 10.1007/s00414-012-0767-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Joseph et al. (2011).Joseph I, Mathew DG, Sathyan P, Vargheese G. The use of insects in forensic investigations: an overview on the scope of forensic entomology. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences. 2011;3(2):89–91. doi: 10.4103/0975-1475.92154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Joy, Liette & Harrah (2006).Joy JE, Liette NL, Harrah HL. Carrion fly (Diptera: Calliphoridae) larval colonization of sunlit and shaded pig carcasses in West Virginia, USA. Forensic Science International. 2006;164(2–3):183–192. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.01.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Krikken & Huijbregts (2001).Krikken J, Huijbregts J. Insects as forensic informants: the Dutch experience and procedure. Proceedings of the Section Experimental and Applied Entomology of the Netherlands Entomological Society. 2001;12:159–164. [Google Scholar]
• Kumar, Yee & Neven (2016).Kumar S, Yee WL, Neven LG. Mapping global potential risk of establishment of Rhagoletis pomonella (Diptera: Tephritidae) using MaxEnt and CLIMEX niche models. Journal of Medical Entomologyomol. 2016;109(5):2043–2053. doi: 10.1093/jee/tow166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kurahashi & Kuranishi (2000).Kurahashi H, Kuranishi RB. Calliphorid and sarcophagid flies (Insecta: Diptera) collected from the Kamchatka Peninsula and North Kuril Islands in 1996–1997. Natural History Research Special Issue. 2000;7:179–180. [Google Scholar]
• Lambiase & Camerini (2012).Lambiase S, Camerini G. Spread and habitat selection of Chrysomya albiceps (Wiedemann) (Diptera Calliphoridae) in Northern Italy: forensic implications. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2012;57(3):799–801. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.02027.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lefebvre & Gaudry (2009).Lefebvre F, Gaudry E. Forensic entomology: a new hypothesis for the chronological succession pattern of necrophagous insect on human corpses. Annales de la Société entomologique de France (N.S.) 2009;45(3):377–392. doi: 10.1080/00379271.2009.10697622. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• Lewis & Benbow (2011).Lewis AJ, Benbow ME. When entomological evidence crawls away: Phormia regina en masse larval dispersal. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2011;48(6):1112–1119. doi: 10.1603/ME11093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Li et al. (2010).Li X, Cai JF, Guo YD, Wu KL, Wang JF, Liu QL, Wang XH, Chang YF, Yang L, Lan LM, Zhong M, Wang X, Song C, Liu Y, Li JB, Dai ZH. The availability of 16S rRNA for the identification of forensically important flies (Diptera: Muscidae) in China. Tropical Biomedicine. 2010;27:155–166. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lohr (2011).Lohr D. Casey Anthony trial: the battle of the bug experts. The Huffington Post (06/17/2011) 2011.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/casey-anthony-trial-bug-experts_n_879567.html. [23 March 2017].http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/casey-anthony-trial-bug-experts_n_879567.html
• Lyra et al. (2005).Lyra ML, Fresia P, Gama S, Cristina J, Klaczko LB, Lima De Azeredo-Espin AM. Analysis of mitochondrial DNA variability and genetic structure in populations of new world screwworm flies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) from Uruguay. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2005;42(4):589–595. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/42.4.589. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• MacLeod & Donnelly (1957a).MacLeod J, Donnelly J. Individual and group marking methods for fly-population studies. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 1957a;48(3):585–592. doi: 10.1017/S0007485300002753. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• MacLeod & Donnelly (1957b).MacLeod J, Donnelly J. Some ecological relationships of natural populations of Calliphorine blowflies. Journal of Animal Ecology. 1957b;26(1):135–170. doi: 10.2307/1786. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• MacLeod & Donnelly (1960).MacLeod J, Donnelly J. Natural features and blowfly movement. Journal of Animal Ecology. 1960;29(1):85–93. doi: 10.2307/2272. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• MacLeod & Donnelly (1962).MacLeod J, Donnelly J. Microgeographic aggregations in blowfly populations. Journal of Animal Ecology. 1962;31(3):525–543. doi: 10.2307/2052. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• Madra, Konwerski & Matuszewski (2014).Madra A, Konwerski S, Matuszewski S. Necrophilous Staphylininae (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) as indicators of season of death and corpse relocation. Forensic Science International. 2014;242:32–37. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.06.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Mann, Bass & Meadows (1990).Mann RW, Bass WM, Meadows L. Time since death and decomposition of the human body: variables and observations in case and experimental field studies. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 1990;35(1):103–111. doi: 10.1520/JFS12806J. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Marchetti et al. (2013).Marchetti D, Arena E, Boschi I, Vanin S. Human DNA extraction from empty puparia. Forensic Science International. 2013;229(1–3):e26–e29. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.03.043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Mariani et al. (2014).Mariani R, García-Mancuso R, Varela GL, Inda AM. Entomofauna of a buried body: study of the exhumation of a human cadaver in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Forensic Science International. 2014;237:19–26. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.12.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Marquez & Krafsur (2003).Marquez JG, Krafsur ES. Mitochondrial diversity evaluated by the single strand conformation polymorphism method in African and North American house flies (Musca domestica L.) Insect Molecular Biology. 2003;12(2):99–106. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2583.2003.00391.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Martinez-Sanchez, Marcos-Garcia & Rojo (2001).Martinez-Sanchez A, Marcos-Garcia M, Rojo S. First collection of Chrysomya megacephala (Fabr.) in Europe (Diptera: Calliphoridae) Pan-Pacific Entomologist. 2001;77:240–243. [Google Scholar]
• Martinez-Sanchez, Rojo & Marcos-Garcia (2000).Martinez-Sanchez A, Rojo S, Marcos-Garcia MA. Annual and spatial activity of dung flies and carrion in a Mediterranean holm-oak pasture ecosystem. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 2000;14(1):56–63. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2915.2000.00205.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Martin-Vega, Gomez-Gomez & Baz (2011).Martin-Vega D, Gomez-Gomez A, Baz A. The “coffin fly” Conicera tibialis (Diptera: Phoridae) breeding on buried human remains after a postmortem interval of 18 years. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2011;56(6):1654–1656. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01839.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Mason (2002).Mason CF. Biology of Freshwater Pollution. New York: Prentice Hall; 2002. [Google Scholar]
• Matuszewski et al. (2010).Matuszewski S, Bajerlein D, Konwerski S, Szpila K. Insect succession and carrion decomposition in selected forests of Central Europe. Part 2: composition and residency patterns of carrion fauna. Forensic Science International. 2010;195(1–3):42–51. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Matuszewski, Szafałowicz & Jarmusz (2013).Matuszewski S, Szafałowicz M, Jarmusz M. Insects colonising carcasses in open and forest habitats of Central Europe: search for indicators of corpse relocation. Forensic Science International. 2013;231(1–3):234–239. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.05.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Mazzanti et al. (2010).Mazzanti M, Alessandrini F, Tagliabracci A, Wells JD, Campobasso CP. DNA degradation and genetic analysis of empty puparia: genetic identification limits in forensic entomology. Forensic Science International. 2010;195(1–3):99–102. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.11.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Meiklejohn, Wallman & Dowton (2013).Meiklejohn KA, Wallman JF, Dowton M. DNA barcoding identifies all immature life stages of a forensically important flesh fly (Diptera: Sarcophagidae) Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2013;58(1):184–187. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2012.02220.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Merritt & Wallace (2001).Merritt R, Wallace J. The role of aquatic insects in forensic investigations. In: Byrd JH, Castner JL, editors. Forensic Entomology: The Utility of Arthropods in Legal Investigations. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2001. pp. 177–222. [Google Scholar]
• Merritt et al. (2007).Merritt RW, Snider R, de Jong JL, Benbow ME, Kimbirauskas RK, Kolar RE. Collembola of the grave: a cold case history involving arthropods 28 years after death. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2007;52(6):1359–1361. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00568.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Miller Coyle et al. (2005).Miller Coyle H, Lee CL, Lin WY, Lee HC, Palmbach TM. Forensic botany: using plant evidence to aid in forensic death investigation. Croatian Medical Journal. 2005;46:606–612. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Mozayani & Noziglia (2011).Mozayani A, Noziglia C. The Forensic Laboratory Handbook Procedures and Practice. Totowa: Humana Press; 2011. [Google Scholar]
• Nazni et al. (2005).Nazni WA, Luke H, Wan Rozita WM, Abdullah AG, Sa’diyah I, Azahari AH, Zamree I, Tan SB, Lee HL, Sofian MA. Determination of the flight range and dispersal of the house fly, Musca domestica (L.) using mark release recapture technique. Tropical Biomedicine. 2005;22:53–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Njau et al. (2016).Njau DG, Muge EK, Kinyanjui PW, Omwandho COA, Mukwana S. STR analysis of human DNA from maggots fed on decomposing bodies: assessment of the time period for successful analysis. Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2016;6(3):261–269. doi: 10.1016/j.ejfs.2015.04.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• Nuorteva (1963).Nuorteva P. Synanthropy of blow flies (Diptera, Calliphoridae) in Finland. Annales Entomologica Fennica. 1963;29:1–49. [Google Scholar]
• Nuorteva (1964).Nuorteva P. Differences in the ecology of L. caesar (L.) and L. illustris (Meig.) (Diptera, Callphoridae) in Finland. Wiadomosci Parazytologiczne. 1964;10:583–587. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• O’Brien et al. (2016).O’Brien A, Townsend K, Hale R, Sharley D, Pettigrove V. How is ecosystem health defined and measured? A critical review of freshwater and estuarine studies. Ecological Indicators. 2016;69:722–729. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.05.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• Ody, Bulling & Barnes (2017).Ody H, Bulling MT, Barnes KM. Effects of environmental temperature on oviposition behavior in three blow fly species of forensic importance. Forensic Science International. 2017;275:138–143. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Ogden & Linacre (2015).Ogden R, Linacre A. Wildlife forensic science: a review of genetic geographic origin assignment. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2015;18:152–159. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Park et al. (2013).Park SH, Park CH, Zhang Y, Piao H, Chung U, Kim SY, Ko KS, Yi C-H, Jo T-H, Hwang J-J. Using the developmental gene bicoid to identify species of forensically important blowflies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) BioMed Research International. 2013;2013:538051. doi: 10.1155/2013/538051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Parry, Mansell & Weldon (2016).Parry NJ, Mansell MW, Weldon CW. Seasonal, locality, and habitat variation in assemblages of carrion-associated Diptera in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2016;53(6):1322–1329. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjw104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Payne, King & Beinhart (1968).Payne JA, King EW, Beinhart G. Arthropod succession and decomposition of buried pigs. Nature. 1968;219(5159):1180–1181. doi: 10.1038/2191180a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Payne-James & Byard (2015).Payne-James J, Byard R. Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine. 1–4. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 2015. [Google Scholar]
• Pechal et al. (2014).Pechal JL, Moore H, Drijfhout F, Benbow ME. Hydrocarbon profiles throughout adult Calliphoridae aging: a promising tool for forensic entomology. Forensic Science International. 2014;245:65–71. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.10.01. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Perotti et al. (2009).Perotti MA, Lee Goff M, Baker AS, Turner BD, Braig HR. Forensic acarology: an introduction. Experimental and Applied Acarology. 2009;49(1–2):3–13. doi: 10.1007/s10493-009-9285-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Picard, Villet & Wells (2012).Picard CJ, Villet MH, Wells JD. Amplified fragment length polymorphism confirms reciprocal monophyly in Chrysomya putoria and Chrysomya chloropyga: a correction of reported shared mtDNA haplotypes. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 2012;26(1):116–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2011.00976.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Picard & Wells (2009).Picard CJ, Wells JD. Survey of the genetic diversity of Phormia regina (Diptera: Calliphoridae) using amplified fragment length polymorphisms. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2009;46(3):664–670. doi: 10.1603/033.046.0334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Picard & Wells (2010).Picard CJ, Wells JD. The population genetic structure of North American Lucilia sericata (Diptera: Calliphoridae), and the utility of genetic assignment methods for reconstruction of postmortem corpse relocation. Forensic Science International. 2010;195(1–3):63–67. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.11.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Pilli et al. (2016).Pilli E, Agostino A, Vergani D, Salata E, Ciuna I, Berti A, Caramelli D, Lambiase S. Human identification by lice: a next generation sequencing challenge. Forensic Science International. 2016;266:e71–e78. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.05.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Pohjoismaki et al. (2010).Pohjoismaki JL, Karhunen PJ, Goebeler S, Saukko P, Saaksjarvi IE. Indoors forensic entomology: colonization of human remains in closed environments by specific species of sarcosaprophagous flies. Forensic Science International. 2010;199(1–3):38–42. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.02.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Povolny (1971).Povolny D. Synanthropy, definition, evolution and classification. In: Greenberg B, editor. Flies and Disease: Ecology, Classification, and Biotic Associations. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1971. pp. 17–54. [Google Scholar]
• Prado e Castro & García (2010).Prado e Castro C, García MD. First record of Chrysomya megacephala (Fabricius, 1794) (Diptera, Calliphoridae) from Portugal. Graellsia. 2010;65(1):75–77. doi: 10.3989/graellsia.2009.v65.i1.139. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• Prado e Castro et al. (2016).Prado e Castro C, Szpila K, Rego C, Boieiro M, Serrano ARM. First finding of larviposition in Calliphora loewi from an island relict forest. Entomological Science. 2016;19(1):77–81. doi: 10.1111/ens.12163. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• Reibe & Madea (2010).Reibe S, Madea B. How promptly do blowflies colonise fresh carcasses? A study comparing indoor with outdoor locations. Forensic Science International. 2010;195(1–3):52–57. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.11.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Reibe et al. (2008).Reibe S, Strehler M, Mayer F, Althaus L, Madea B, Benecke M. Dumping of corpses in compost bins-two forensic entomological case reports. Archiv fur Kriminologie. 2008;222:195–201. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Reigada et al. (2011).Reigada C, Giao JZ, Galindo LA, Godoy WA. Survival of submerged blowfly species and their parasitoids: implications for postmortem submersion interval. Forensic Science International. 2011;212(1–3):126–129. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Rognes (1991).Rognes K. Blow Flies (Diptera, Calliphoridae) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Leiden: E J Brill/Scandinavian Science Press; 1991. [Google Scholar]
• Rosenbaum, Devigne & Charabidzé (2016).Rosenbaum F, Devigne C, Charabidzé D. Ecologie des Dermestidae, une famille de Coléoptères nécrophages associée aux cadavres squelettisés. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France (N.S.) 2016;51(4):294–302. doi: 10.1080/00379271.2015.1096751. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• Schumann (1990).Schumann H. Über das vorkommen von Dipteren in wohnräumen. Angewandte Parasitologie. 1990;31:131–141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Simmons et al. (2010).Simmons T, Cross PA, Adlam RE, Moffatt C. The influence of insects on decomposition rate in buried and surface remains. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2010;55(4):889–892. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01402.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Smith (1986).Smith KGV. A Manual of Forensic Entomology. London: Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History); 1986. [Google Scholar]
• Smith & Wall (1997).Smith KE, Wall R. The use of carrion as breeding sites by the blowfly Lucilia sericata and other Calliphoridae. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 1997;11(1):38–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.1997.tb00287.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Sonet et al. (2013).Sonet G, Jordaens K, Braet Y, Bourguignon L, Dupont E, Backeljau T, De Meyer M, Desmyter S. Utility of GenBank and the barcode of life data systems (BOLD) for the identification of forensically important Diptera from Belgium and France. ZooKeys. 2013;365:307–328. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.365.6027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Sorg et al. (1996).Sorg MH, Dearborn JH, Monahan EI, Ryan HF, Sweeney KG, David E. Forensic taphonomy in marine contexts. In: Haglund WD, Sorg MH, editors. Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1996. pp. 567–604. [Google Scholar]
• Sperling, Anderson & Hickey (1994).Sperling FA, Anderson GS, Hickey DA. A DNA-based approach to the identification of insect species used for postmortem interval estimation. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 1994;39(2):418–427. doi: 10.1520/JFS13613J. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Starkeby (2001).Starkeby M. Dead larvae of Cynomya mortuorum (L.) (Diptera, Calliphoridae) as indicators of the post-mortem interval—a case history from Norway. Forensic Science International. 2001;120(1–2):77–78. doi: 10.1016/S0379-0738(01)00430-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Steinborn (1981).Steinborn HA. Oekologische Untersuchungen an Schmeissfliegen (Calliphoridae) Drosera. 1981;81(1):17–26. [Google Scholar]
• Syamsa et al. (2017).Syamsa RA, Omar B, Ahmad FMS, Hidayatulfathi O, Shahrom AW. Comparative fly species composition on indoor and outdoor forensic cases in Malaysia. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. 2017;45:41–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2016.12.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Szpila et al. (2014).Szpila K, Pape T, Hall MJ, Madra A. Morphology and identification of first instars of European and Mediterranean blowflies of forensic importance. Part III: Calliphorinae. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 2014;28(2):133–142. doi: 10.1111/mve.12021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Szpila, Voss & Pape (2010).Szpila K, Voss JG, Pape T. A new dipteran forensic indicator in buried bodies. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 2010;24:278–283. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2010.00883.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Szyniszewska & Tatem (2014).Szyniszewska AM, Tatem AJ. Global assessment of seasonal potential distribution of Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) PLoS ONE. 2014;9(11):e111582. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111582. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Tomberlin & Adler (1998).Tomberlin JK, Adler PH. Seasonal colonization and decomposition of rat carrion in water and on land in an open field in South Carolina. Journal of Medical Entomology. 1998;35(5):704–709. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/35.5.704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Tomberlin et al. (2011).Tomberlin JK, Mohr R, Benbow ME, Tarone AM, Van Laerhoven S. A roadmap for bridging basic and applied research in forensic entomology. Annual Review of Entomology. 2011;56(1):401–421. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-051710-103143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Van Laerhoven & Anderson (1999).Van Laerhoven SL, Anderson GS. Insect succession on buried carrion in two biogeoclimatic zones of British Columbia. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 1999;44(1):32–43. doi: 10.1520/jfs14409j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Vanin et al. (2008).Vanin S, Tasinato P, Ducolin G, Terranova C, Zancaner S, Montisci M, Ferrara SD, Turchetto M. Use of Lucilia species for forensic investigations in Southern Europe. Forensic Science International. 2008;177(1):37–41. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2007.10.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Vanin et al. (2011).Vanin S, Gherardi M, Bugelli V, Di Paolo M. Insects found on a human cadaver in central Italy including the blowfly Calliphora loewi (Diptera, Calliphoridae), a new species of forensic interest. Forensic Science International. 2011;207(1–3):e30–e33. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.12.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Voss, Spafford & Dadour (2009).Voss SC, Spafford H, Dadour IR. Annual and seasonal patterns of insect succession on decomposing remains at two locations in Western Australia. Forensic Science International. 2009;193(1–3):26–36. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.08.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Wells et al. (2001).Wells JD, Introna F, Jr, Di Vella G, Campobasso CP, Hayes J, Sperling FA. Human and insect mitochondrial DNA analysis from maggots. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2001;46(3):685–687. doi: 10.1520/JFS15022J. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Wells & Sperling (2001).Wells JD, Sperling FAH. DNA-based identification of forensically important Chrysomyinae (Diptera: Calliphoridae) Forensic Science International. 2001;120(1–2):110–115. doi: 10.1016/S0379-0738(01)00414-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Wells & Stevens (2010).Wells JD, Stevens JR. Molecular methods for forensic entomology. In: Byrd JH, Castner JL, editors. Forensic Entomology: The Utility of Arthropods in Legal Investigations. Second Edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2010. pp. 437–452. [Google Scholar]
• Wilby (2003).Wilby RL. Past and projected trends in London’s urban heat island. Weather. 2003;58(7):251–260. doi: 10.1256/wea.183.02. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
• Wooldridge, Scrase & Wall (2007).Wooldridge J, Scrase L, Wall R. Flight activity of the blowflies, Calliphora vomitoria and Lucilia sericata, in the dark. Forensic Science International. 2007;172(2–3):94–97. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.12.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Wyss, Cherix & Mangin (2013).Wyss C, Cherix D, Mangin P. Traité d’entomologie forensique: les insectes sur la scène de crime. Paris: PPUR Presses Polytechniques; 2013. [Google Scholar]
• Xinghua et al. (2010).Xinghua W, Jufeng C, Yadong G, Yufeng C, Kunlu W, Qinlai L. The availability of 16SrDNA gene for identifying forensically important blowflies in China.http://www.rjlm.ro/index.php/arhiv/125. [6 September 2016];Romanian Journal of Legal Medicine [Internet] 2010 18(1) [Google Scholar]
• Zabala, Díaz & Saloña-Bordas (2014).Zabala J, Díaz B, Saloña-Bordas MI. Seasonal blowfly distribution and abundance in fragmented landscapes. Is it useful in forensic inference about where a corpse has been decaying? PLoS ONE. 2014;9(6):e99668. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099668. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Zaidi et al. (2011).Zaidi F, Wei S-J, Shi M, Chen X-X. Utility of multi-gene Loci for forensic species diagnosis of blowflies. Journal of Insect Science. 2011;11(59):1–12. doi: 10.1673/031.011.5901. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Zehner et al. (2004).Zehner R, Amendt J, Schütt S, Sauer J, Krettek R, Povolný D. Genetic identification of forensically important flesh flies (Diptera: Sarcophagidae) International Journal of Legal Medicine. 2004;118(4):245–247. doi: 10.1007/s00414-004-0445-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Data Availability Statement

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The research in this article did not generate any data or code (literature review).