Hello Vanessa & All,
Vanessa wrote:
>     Some more oil on the II vs AI contest:
>     I screened the Cab abstracts containing publications in the
agricultural
> science research field, from 1973 until 2000. Here are the results:
> -  Instrumental Insemination: 83 papers including
>          73 concerning bees and/or Apis spp., and
>          10 concerning horses or humans.
> -  Artificial Insemination: 9483 papers including
>          83 concerning bees and/or Apis spp., and
>          9400 concerning about everything else.

Each has the right to call the process whatever they want and the term AI &
II describe a similar procedure.  I can see Vanessa has spent time
researching her position so i will strengthen mine.
Lloyd Watson in 1927 proved the procedure could be done in bees and gave us
the term. I believe he had the right. Out of respect we as beekeepers should
use the term . The procedure has gave us bee breeding possibilities we never
new possible before Watson. When queens only mate  75 feet in the air the
benefit to beekeeping is huge. All bee inseminators (bee inseminators???) I
have talked to believe instrumental insemination to be correct. AI is slang
for insemination of A.mellifera in my opinion. I will however know what you
are talking about if you say AI at a bee meeting.
 example:
bee hive or bee box.
 colony or brood nest
The point I was making is at least in beekeeping books the term should be
instrumental insemination.
Bob's original post:
> >> Lets all see  future books on beekeeping use the correct terms.  For
the
> archives:
> Lloyd R. Watson in 1927 demonstrated that queen  honey  bees  could be
> inseminated and gave us the term "instrumental insemination". After 74
years
> we should expect bee books to use the correct terms.
Sincerely,
Bob Harrison
Odessa, Missouri
Ps. on the video "the monk & the honey bee" there is a part which shows the
instrumental insemination of a queen. Some of the best pictures I have seen
of close up II.