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.
However, if a holotype can be _made_ by action such as Gray took, then (1) is no. 43.3.3.3 the type specimen of _Mustela longicauda_ Bonaparte and, (2) is no. 43.3.3.4 the type specimen of _Mustela Richardsonii_ Bonaparte?
Incidentally, _Mustela longicauda_ Bonaparte whether based on no. 43.3.3.3 or on Richardson's account will continue in its present application. The same is true of _Mustela richardsonii_. If the basis of _Mustela cicognanii_ Bonaparte [the diagnosis in the Iconografia d. Fauna Italica ... makes it clear that the name applies to the _short-tailed_ species] was a weasel from the eastern United States or a description of a weasel or weasels from there, the name will continue in its present application. If, instead, the name is based on no. 43.3.3.3 (from Carlton House, Saskatchewan) or on Richardson's account of _M. vulgaris_, the name will apply to a different subspecies (now called _richardsonii_ and _richardsonii_ will fall as a synonym of _cicognanii_) and the ermine of the eastern United States will take the next available name. Bonaparte probably named (in manuscript at least) _cicognanii_ before he ever saw the specimen in the British Museum. This is indicated by his statement in Charlesworth's Magazine (1838:37) that "I have _now_ [Italics mine] found two [other] American species. . . ." Whereas the names _richardsonii_ and _longicauda_ are based on Richardson, the name _cicognanii_, even if it dates from the account in Charlesworth's Magazine, appears to have a composite basis composed at the very least of (1) animals seen by Bonaparte in the United States, and (2) those called _vulgaris_ by some other authors. Conceivably the specimen no. 43.3.3.3 in the British Museum, was part of the basis. From the nature of the case it can be argued that there could be no type and that if someone should bring to light a specimen in, say, Philadelphia, bearing the notation "this is the specimen seen in the United States by Bonaparte" it would immediately become as important as the one in London. Any American weasel or weasels (then alive or preserved in a zoölogical collection) that Bonaparte saw in the United States probably were of the eastern United States. Bangs (1896:18-21), for one, previous to the present consideration of the name _cicognanii_, restricted it to the ermine of the eastern United States. Consequently, the name _cicognanii_, in the present account is applied to the ermine of the eastern United States. In my opinion there was and is no type. Almost certainly there was no type if the Fauna Italica appeared before the account in Charlesworth's Magazine did.