It seems you are arguing over a specific method (II) versus
the concept in general (AI). All are AI, only those using
instruments are II. A subset of the entire subject. And only
really relevant to those PhD's that make their living from
publishing such, other than to confuse the lay person into
thinking they are talking about totally different techniques.
When you can do AI without II on a bee, then the difference
will become relevant in discussing the pro's and con's of each
technique.

In the meantime, perhaps those on different sides of the pond
can simply agree to disagree. I think most of us know what you
are talking about, regardless of which you use. (Except those
in the computer field, which keep thinking the AI people have
developed some form of artificially smart bee, or an artificial
bee that is also smart??? The possibilities are mind-boggling.
 At least, we aren't pronouncing it "A1" as a national
newscaster is calling the new Spielberg movie).

K

-----Original Message-----
Bob wrote:

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.