The name in the original publication is Musa aranakensis not M. arakanensis.  The page number in J. Ag. Hort. Soc. Ind. is 53 not 51 as stated by Baker.  The author should properly be Ripley ex Blechynden, not just Ripley.

Blechynden's paper started with a "List of sundry specimens of Fibre received by the Agricultural and Horticultural Society from November 1855, to April 1856".   First in this list on page 53 was "Specimens from Arracan forwarded by Lieut. F. W. Ripley, Asst. Commissioner".  Item B4 of Ripley's specimens was "Plantain fibre from Musa Aranakensis".  On page 57 there is an "Extract of a letter from Capt. [sic] F. W. Ripley, Sandoway dated December 8th 1855" in which Ripley notes that "B4 is a small parcel of the fibre of the Arracan Plantain".   And on page 61 there is a "Report on Foregoing Specimens" by W. Thompson also signed by W. Haworth which notes "B4. "Plantain fibre".  A poor fibre, very harsh, brittle and weak.  Of no appreciable value as an article of export."

Since the specimen is of the Arracan Plantain, Ripley presumably meant to name it Musa Arakanensis but the name was first published as Musa Aranakensis; whether this was a mistake by Ripley or by Blechynden I do not know but M. Aranakensis takes precedence despite Baker's "correction", if that is what it was.   Since the name Musa Aranakensis was published without a description it is nomen nudum.  The authorship of the species is based on that of the publication where Ripley's name was published.