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?