The authenticity of concepts promulgated in the article about "Pigmented epithelioid melanocytomas: a low-grade melanocytic tumor with metastatic potential indistinguishable from animal-type melanoma and epithelioid blue nevus" can be assessed best by posing questions in fashion Socratic:

1. Can you define pigmented epithelioid melanocytoma and list criteria for it, clinically and histopathologically?

2. Can you define animal-type melanoma and list criteria for it, clinically and histopathologically?

3. Can you define epithelioid blue nevus of Carney complex and list criteria for it, clinically and histopathologically?

4. Can you define borderline melanocytic tumor?

5. Given the fact that there is no such thing as local metastasis, metastasis by definition being disseminated, do you accept the premise that "pigmented epithelioid melanocytoma is a unique melanocytic neoplasm with low probability of systemic spread despite its ability to metastasize to regional lymph nodes"?

6. If a neoplasm composed of melanocytes metastasizes, do you think it is preferable to consider it a pigmented epithelioid melanocytoma rather than a melanoma?

7. Based on everything that has been presented here, which is representative truly of that written by Zembowicz, Carney, and Mihm, do you agree that " . . . it is best to consider pigmented epithelioid melanocytoma as a provisional histologic entity encompassing and synonymous with both animal-type melanoma and epithelioid blue nevus"?

If your answer to each of these seven questions is a resounding "No!," then you score 100% for capability to test reality as it is.