Part 14

_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.

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.

_Specimens examined._--Total number, 172, arranged alphabetically by provinces and states, then (except where indication is given to the contrary) by counties from north to south within each state or province. Unless otherwise indicated, specimens are in the U. S. National Museum.

=Connecticut.= _Windham County_: S. Woodstock, Woodstock Lake, 1[2]. _Hartford County_: Windsor, 1[5]. _New London County_: Liberty Hill, 3[75].

=Maine.= _Aroostook County_: Quimby, 1[75]; Ashland 2[75]. _Piscataquis County_: tableland on top of Mt. Katahdin, 1; Chimney Pond, 3; T. 5, R. 13, 3[5]; "vicinity of Chesnucook," 1[5]; T. 4, R. 13, 1[5]; Moosehead Lake, 7[75]; Grenville, 10[75]; Barnard, 3 (1[86]). _Penobscot County_: South Twin Lake, 1[2]; Lincoln, 11 (7[1], 2[14], 2[50]). _Franklin County_: Seven Pond Township, 7[75]. _Oxford County_: Umbago Lake, 1[75]; Upton, 4[86]; Bethel, 1[75]. _Hancock County_: Bucksport, 17[75]; Naskeag, 1. _Lincoln County_: Booth Bay, 1[5].

=Massachusetts.= _Middlesex County_: Wilmington, 2; Burlington, 6 (1[75]); _Worcester County_: Cambridge, 5 (1[5], 3[75]); Sterling, 1[5]. _Plymouth County_: Middleboro, 7 (1[75]).

=New Hampshire.= _Carroll County_: Ossipee, 5. _Rockingham County_: Greenland, 1[76]. _Cheshire County_: Dublin, 1.

=New York.= _St. Lawrence County_: Ogdensburg, 1[74]. _Franklin County_: Malone, 1[58]. _Lewis County_: Locust Grove, 1. _Warren County_: Lake George, 1. _Montgomery County_: Amsterdam, 1. _Albany County_: Albany, 1[80]. _Rensselaer County_: Berlin, 2[2]; Schoharie, 1[2]. _Thompkins County_: Cascadilla Creek, Ithaca, 1[58]. _Allegany County_: Ford Brook, Wellsville, 1[58]. _Ontario County_: Phelps, 1[50]. _Cattaraugus County_: Cattaraugus, 1[5].

=Ontario= (localities locally north to south, then west to east). _Thunder Bay Dist._: Grand Bay, Lake Nipigon, 5[86]; Macdiarmid, 2[86]; Oscar, 2[14]; 20 mi. SW Fort Williams, 1[76]; Michipicoten Island, 3[104]. _Algoma Dist._: Michipicoten, 1; Franz, 1[74]; Pancake Bay, 2[77]. _Parry Sound Dist._: French River, Georgia Bay, 1[2]; Seguin Falls, Twp. Montieth, 1[86]. _Sudbury Dist._: Casselman, Rathbun Twp., 1[86]. _Nipissing Dist._: Smoky Falls, near Kapuskasing, 4[86]; Franks Bay, Lake Nipissing, 1[86]. _Haliburton County_: Gooderham, 1[60]. _Simcoe County_: Orillia, 1[2]; no locality more definite than county, 1[60]. _Carleton County_: Britannia, 5 mi. W Ottawa, 1[77]; Ottawa, 1[77]; Constant Bay, NE? of Ottawa, 1[77]. _Wellington County_: Mt. Forest, 2[75]; Guelph, 1[31]. _Addington County_: Buckshot Lake, Abinger Twp., 1[86]. _Fontenac County_: Clear Lake, Arden, 1[77].

=Pennsylvania= (by counties from west to east). _Crawford County_: North Shenango Township, Pymatuning Swamp, 2[9]; Linesville (3 mi. NW, 1; 3-1/2 mi. W, 2; 3 mi. W, 1; 2 mi. SW, 1; 7-1/2 mi. SW, 1) 6[9]. _Potter County_: Cherry Springs Farm, Abbott Township, 1; 3 mi. S Inez, South Fork Sinnamahoning Creek, 1[9]. _Sullivan County_: Lopez, 1[74]. _Lackawanna County_: Scranton, 1[1]. _Wayne County_: Waymart, 1.

=Quebec= (west to east). _Labelle County_: Kamika [= Kiamika] Lake, 2[77]; Lacoste, 2[77]; Trout Lake, probably in this county, 2[77]. _Megantic County_: Black Lake, 1[77].

=Rhode Island.= _Newport County_: Middletown, 2[5].

=Vermont.= _Lamoille County_: Mt. Mansfield, 1. _Windsor County_: Barnard, 1[5].

=Mustela erminea bangsi= Hall

Ermine

Plates 2, 3, 4, 9, 10 and 11

_Mustela erminea bangsi_ Hall, Journ. Mamm., 26:176, July 19, 1945.

[_Putorius_] _cicognani_, Mearns, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 3:235, June 5, 1891.

_Putorius richardsoni cicognani_, Bangs, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 10:18, February 25, 1896 (part).

_Putorius cicognanii_, Cory, Mamm. Illinois and Wisconsin, p. 375, 1912.

_Mustela cicognanii_, Aldous and Manweiler, Journ. Mamm., 23:250, August 13, 1942.

_Mustela cicognanii cicognanii_, Bailey, N. Amer. Fauna, 49:169, January 8, 1927; Leraas, Journ. Mamm., 23:344, August 13, 1942.

_Type._--Male, subadult, skull and skin; no. 11541, D. R. Dickey Coll.; Elk River, Sherburne County, Minnesota; November 1, 1925; obtained by Bernard Bailey, original no. A 606.

The skull is complete and the teeth all are present and entire. The skin is well made and in a good state of preservation.

_Range._--Southern Manitoba, northeastern North Dakota, the whole of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan and northern Iowa. See figure 25 on page 95.

_Characters for ready recognition._--Differs from _M. e. richardsonii_, in that, in both sexes, least width of color of underparts averages about a third, instead of two-fifths, of greatest width of color of upper parts, and in that skulls of males are a fifth or more lighter, basilar length averaging less than 40; from _M. e. cicognanii_, in that hind foot more than 40 in males, averaging 32 versus 30 in females, and in larger skull, depth of skull at plane of molars being 11.4 versus 10.0 in males and 9.1 versus 8.6 in females.

_Description._--_Size._--Male: Twelve adult and subadult males from Aitkin, Minnesota, yield average and extreme measurements as follows: Total length, 316 (291-341); length of tail, 87 (70-101); length of hind foot, 43 (40-44). Two adults from Aitkin each weigh 170 grams.

Four adult and subadult females from Elk River and Fort Snelling, Minnesota, yield average and extreme measurements as follows: Total length, 249 (240-260); length of tail, 61 (55-65); length of hind foot, 32 (30-33).

_Color._--As described in _Mustela erminea richardsonii_ except that, least width of color of underparts averaging, in males from Minnesota, 32 (19-51) per cent of greatest width of color of upper parts. Black tip of tail in 12 male topotypes in white winter pelage averaging 52 (45-58) mm. which is 60 (53-66) per cent of length of tail-vertebrae.

_Skull._--Male (based on adults from Aitkin): See measurements and plates 2-4. As described in _Mustela erminea richardsonii_ except that: Weight of 2 adults from Aitkin, 2.2, 2.3 grams (9 subadults from T. 61 N, R. 26 W, average 1.95 grams); basilar length, 39.7 (38.5-40.7); length of tooth-rows rarely more (usually less) than length of tympanic bulla.

Female (based on adults from Minnesota as listed in table of cranial measurements, which see): See plates 9-11. As described in _Mustela erminea richardsonii_ except that: Weight, of a subadult from T. 61 N, R. 26 W, 0.91 grams; basilar length, 32.8 (31.8-33.6); breadth of rostrum rarely equal to as much as 30 per cent of basilar length.

From _richardsonii_, topotypes of _bangsi_ differ in that cranial measurements in males are approximately 7 (5-9) per cent less, linear measurements of teeth are 10 (9-11) per cent less and the skull is a fifth lighter. In relation to basilar length the tympanic bullae of _bangsi_ are longer. Skulls of females are individually indistinguishable, those of _bangsi_ averaging approximately 1 per cent less in linear measurements. Comparison with the smaller cicognanii is made in the account of that subspecies.

_Remarks._--Before the subspecific name _bangsi_ was proposed, individuals of this subspecies ordinarily were recorded in the literature as _Mustela cicognanii_. The best single lot of material is in the zoölogical collection of the University of Wisconsin. The late naturalist Albert Lano preserved a large share of the material from Minnesota. The large series from Elk River of that same state was mostly collected by Bernard Bailey although his Aunt, Anna (Bailey) Mills, and her brother the late Vernon Bailey, at an earlier time saved some specimens from Elk River. The name _bangsi_ was proposed in recognition of the superior work done on American weasels by the late Outram Bangs.

From the range of _M. e. invicta_ in the Rocky Mountains, that of _bangsi_ is separated by the Great Plains from a large part of which region the species is unknown. _M. e. bangsi_ differs from _invicta_ in greater degree of sexual dimorphism in size, and in each sex by larger size, narrower light-colored underparts, and deeper braincase as measured at the anterior margin of the basioccipital. In _bangsi_ the braincase is deeper relative to the length of the skull as well as, of course, actually deeper.

Of the two subspecies whose ranges do meet that of _bangsi_, it more closely resembles _richardsonii_ than _cicognanii_. From _richardsonii_, especially from southeastern populations of the same in which the skull is of the same size as in _bangsi_, the latter differs in longer hind feet. This is an average difference and by one interpretation the animals here referred to _bangsi_ might be lumped with some of the populations from the southeastern part of the range of _richardsonii_ and the whole lot treated as intergrades between _richardsonii_ and _cicognanii_. Nevertheless, the animals here referred to bangsi are not geographically intermediate between _richardsonii_ and _cicognanii_ and this consideration had much to do with the decision to recognize as a separate subspecies the animals here named _bangsi_.

Within the range of the subspecies there is some geographic variation; the hind feet of animals from Iowa average slightly shorter than those of animals from Minnesota and Wisconsin but are nowhere nearly so short as in _cicognanii_ at the same latitude in the eastern United States.

It is noteworthy that the few specimens seen from Isle Royal have the long hind feet of _bangsi_ and not the short hind feet of _cicognanii_ which occurs all along the northern mainland.

Because an oft cited record of occurrence even though erroneous, has a way of being repeated in later works, attention is here called to the alleged occurrence of this ermine in northwestern Ohio at New Bremen. Henninger (1921:239) published the original account of the supposed occurrence but as I pointed out in 1937 (p. 304), the specimen concerned proved upon examination to be a female of _Mustela frenata noveboracensis_. Henninger was misled probably by the short tail; the end of the tail had been lost and healed over before the animal's death. The present study has revealed that _M. erminea_ everywhere east of the Cascade Mountains assumes a white winter coat. Had this been known when Henninger obtained his specimen he probably would not have wrongly identified the animal from New Bremen which was in the brown, winter pelage.

_Specimens examined._--Total number, 222, arranged alphabetically by provinces and states and, arranged from north to south, by counties in each state. Unless otherwise indicated, specimens are in the University of Wisconsin Museum of Zoölogy.

=Iowa.= _Dickinson County_: W side Lake Okobogie, 1[48]. _Winnebago County_: Lake Mills, 7[65]. _Worth County_: Northwood, 1[65]. _Clay County_: "Dewey's Pasture, near Ruthven," 1[76].

=Manitoba.= Aweme, 4[47]; Red River Settlement, 1[91].