Part 23

The restriction of the type locality from the general region of northeastern North America, as given by Merriam (1896:10) to the less inclusive area of the eastern United States as earlier given by Bangs (1896:18) is supported by Bonaparte's remarks in connection with the proposal of the name cicognanii. He says (1838:37-38) "During my stay in the United States, I only saw a small species of Mustela, very common throughout the Union . . . ." This animal constituted basis for the name cicognanii which name, he points out, is bestowed in order that the Americans ". . . should have constantly under their eye, this very common little animal, as the perpetual memorial . . ." to the Italian Governmental representative ". . . who, for upwards of fourteen years had served, in diplomatic and commercial concerns, . . . two countries, . . . so different . . . as the Roman and the United States. . . ." Clearly he had in mind principally, if not exclusively, the animal of the United States.

Range.--Transition and higher life-zones of northeastern United States south to Connecticut, central Pennsylvania and extreme northeastern Ohio; in Quebec and Ontario westward from the latitude of central Maine to Lake Nipigon and Lake of the Woods. See figure 25 on page 95.

Characters for ready recognition.--Differs from M. e. richardsonii of both sexes, in that least width of color of underparts averages less than a third rather than two-fifths of greatest width of color of upper parts, in males skull less, instead of more, than 1.9 grams and basilar length less than 38, in females by 16 per cent lighter skull (0.92 versus 1.1 grams); from M. e. bangsi, in males hind foot less instead of more than 40, linear measurements of skull averaging 11 per cent less (depth of skull at plane of molars 10.0 versus 11.4), in females averaging smaller, hind foot 30 versus 32 and depth of skull at plane of molars 8.6 versus 9.1.

Description.--Size.--Male. Seven adults and subadults from New York and Pennsylvania, yield average and extreme measurements as follows: Total length, 266 (240-295); length of tail, 74 (66-80); length of hind foot, 36 (33-39). Hamilton (1933:294) gives the weight of 31 adults from New York as 81 (66-105) grams.

Female: Twelve adults and subadults from Maine and the area south to central Pennsylvania, yield average and extreme measurements as follows: Total length, 243 (225-260); length of tail, 63 (55-72); length of hind foot, 29.8 (26-32). Hamilton (1933:294) gives the weight of 15 adults from New York as 54 (45-71) grams.

Color.--As described in Mustela erminea richardsonii except that underparts in summer Marguerite Yellow or even more whitish; least width of color of underparts averaging, in adult males from New York and Pennsylvania, 29 (27-32) per cent of greatest width of color of upper parts. Black tip of tail in same series averaging 42 (30-51) mm. which is 57 per cent of length of tail-vertebrae.

Skull.--Male (illustrated by 4 adults in table of cranial measurements, which see): See plates 2-4. As described in Mustela erminea richardsonii except that: Weight, 1.5 (1.2-1.7) grams; basilar length, 35.7 (33.8-37.6).

Female (illustrated by adult and subadults recorded in table of cranial measurements, which see): See plates 9-11. As described in Mustela erminea richardsonii except that: Weight of 2 subadults, 0.92 (0.86-0.98) grams; basilar length, 32.4 (31.4-33.3).

The skull of the male, in linear measurements, is approximately 13 (12-16) per cent smaller and 40 per cent lighter than in M. e. richardsonii. In relation to the basilar length, the skull averages slightly narrower, slightly shallower as measured in the vertical plane touching the posterior borders of the last upper molars, and the preorbital part is slightly longer. In skulls of females of cicognanii, linear measurements average 3 (0-6) per cent less, the weight is 16 per cent less and the teeth are 5 per cent shorter. In relation to the basilar length, measurements of the skull are approximately the same or slightly less in cicognanii.

In comparison with bangsi, the male sex in linear measurements of the skull and teeth averages 11 per cent less than in bangsi from Aitkin, Minn., and 6 per cent less than in bangsi from Elk River, but in relation to the basilar length the preorbital region is larger. The weight is approximately a fourth less. In females the measurements average less, some being the same, and in relation to the basilar length, the bullae are shorter and the skull is shallower. The weight is about the same.

Remarks.--In January, 1838, in Charlesworth's Magazine of Natural History, C. L. Bonaparte proposed for three kinds of American weasels the names Mustela cicognanii, Mustela richardsonii and Mustela longicauda.

In this paper Bonaparte indicates that he previously had written (for his Iconografia della Fauna Italica ...) an account of Mustela cicognanii using this same name. Fasciola XXII of the Iconogr. d. Fauna Italica, presenting his account of Mustela, like the English paper was published in the year 1838. In his article in Charlesworth's Magazine, Bonaparte refers to his book published [used the past tense] in Rome but whether it actually appeared first I am unable to determine and hence am uncertain which of the two constitutes the original description.

Reference to the Italian account suggests as basis for the name M. cicognanii, (1) specimens possibly seen in the United States by Bonaparte, or (2) Godman's published account of the animal.

In the English publication, however, Bonaparte actually says that (1) he saw the small species in the Union [= United States]. Also, he (2) mentions his earlier written Italian account, (3) mentions that "all the [American?] naturalists" used the name M. vulgaris for this animal, (4) incidentally mentions Godman's account, and (5) in naming two other American species cites accounts of them by Richardson. Also, Bonaparte in this English article makes clear that when he wrote [not necessarily published] his Italian paper he did not know of the existence of two of the three American species.

In the register of mammals at the British Museum of Natural History, there appears:

43.3.3.3 Mustela longicauda Bonap N amer presented by Dr. J. Richardson 4 Mustela Richardsonii Bonap " 5 " Cicognanii Bonap "

To the right of these entries there appears, in three lines, the notation: "The three specimens examined by Prince Canino on which he established the three species."

Every part of each of the above entries is in the hand writing of J. E. Gray, in charge of the collections from 1824 to 1840 and associated with them as Keeper until 1875. The three specimens are in good condition considering their age. The catalogue or register number shows, among other things, that they were entered in the register on March 3, 1843.

Questions which might occur to anyone are:

(1) Was there a type specimen of Mustela Cicognanii Bonaparte? If so is it no. 43.3.3.5?

(2) If there was no type specimen was there a type locality? If so what is it?

Among other things that may have bearing on these questions, are these: Bonaparte in Charlesworth's Magazine appears to base the two names Mustela Richardsonii and Mustela longicauda on Richardson's published account of Mustela erminea. At any rate immediately following each of the two names, Bonaparte writes "Nob. (M. erminea Rich. F. Bor. Amer.)." Bonaparte's other, first newly proposed name, Mustela Cicognanii, in Charlesworth's Magazine has following it only "Nob. North America," although in a paragraph above he did point out that this was the animal which all naturalists, at the time he was in America, considered as M. vulgaris.

Turning to Richardson's account (Fauna Boreali Americana, ... Quadrupeds, pp. 45-47. 1829) one finds that he recognized two species, M. vulgaris and M. erminea. Of the first he gives measurements "of an old female killed at Carlton House." Of the second species he distinguishes two varieties, the first represented by a specimen, of which he gives measurements, "killed at Fort Franklin, Great Bear Lake" and, the second variety "of a larger size, having a longer tail and longer fore-claws" he indicates the size of by giving measurements of a specimen taken "in the neighborhood of Carlton House."

The last variety is clearly the basis of Bonaparte's M. longicauda. The specimen from which Richardson took his measurements I have been unable to locate [no. 43.3.3.3 in the British Museum, appears to be another specimen, although of the same subspecies and provided by Richardson].

The first variety of Richardson's Mustela erminea, clearly is the basis of Bonaparte's M. Richardsonii. The specimen from which Richardson took his measurements may well be no. 43.3.3.4 now preserved in the British Museum of Natural History, but I could not be certain about this.

Richardson's M. vulgaris is accompanied by measurements of a female which I have ascertained to my full satisfaction is the identical specimen now bearing catalogue number 43.3.3.5 said by Gray to be the specimen on which Bonaparte based his name Mustela cicognanii.

Gray probably saw his guest, Bonaparte, at work on these weasels and Gray's own written indication perhaps should be accepted at its face value. I found only 4 Richardson specimens of North American weasel in the British Museum in 1937 and it is conceivable that Bonaparte, 100 years before, actually had at hand only one specimen each of two kinds and 2 specimens of the third. This I think is not an important consideration, though, for Gray says just which specimens did serve as basis for Bonaparte's names and there is only one specimen for each name according to Gray.

But I wonder if a type specimen can be made in this way? That is to say, after a name is published in a manner which makes it available, and if two or more specimens of the kind of animal involved, were, or may have been, available to the describer, can a person, even the author, himself, make a type specimen by saying that one particular specimen is beyond doubt the specimen on which a given name was established even though no particular specimen was designated in the original description? I incline to the view that a specimen so designated would at most be only a lectotype, unless it were a cotype.