2. Musa gigantea C. E. O. Kuntze, Revisio Generum Plantarum 2: 691 (1891).

3. Ensete gigantea (C. E. O. Kuntze) T. Nakai, Bulletin of the Tokyo Science Museum 22: 12 (1948).

4. Ensete nepalensis (N. Wallich) E. E. Cheesman, err. cal. N. W. Simmonds, Kew Bulletin 14 (2): 212 (1960).

The precise identity of Musa nepalensis N. Wallich, as Cheesman says, "provides a nice problem". 

Cheesman 1947a writes that "Wallich [writing presumably in the 1820s or 1830s] described in great detail a plant from Nepal, of which he says : "I am doubtful if this plant ought to be considered as distinct from M. superba, or as an intermediate species between that and M. glauca, differing from the former in the sheathing petioles, and from the latter in its stature and inflorescence.  I shall better be able to determine its character when the plants of it, which I brought down with me, and which thrive very well in the Hon[ourable East India] Comp[any's] botanic garden [in Calcutta], shall begin to blossom".  It is difficult to square this account with what comes next as Cheesman continues "Baker says of it : "Described principally from two large unpublished drawings of Wallich, now at Kew.  Not known in cultivation".  Why Baker chose apparently to ignore Wallich's detailed description and base his 1893 description on Wallich's drawings I do not know.  But I wonder whether these drawings include one mentioned by Desmond 1991.  Desmond notes that Indian artists servicing the Mughal empire sought European patronage when the empire began to disintegrate in the 18th century.  The artists had rapidly to adapt their traditional stylised techniques to the naturalistic demands of their new clients but were not always successful.  An example quoted by Desmond is as follows:

"A drawing of 'Musa nepalensis', probably Ensete glaucum, incurred the displeasure of one botanist who indignantly scribbled on it: 'Most abominable leaves for which master painter shall be duly cut with reference to his month's wages'."

Either something happened that prevented Wallich from describing the "blossoming" plants in the Honourable East India Company's Calcutta botanic garden or the plants did not thrive as well as Wallich hoped.  Either way it seems they were not further described and there is not even a definite record of their ever being in cultivation.   Cheesman resumes:

"Kew Bulletin (1894, p. 243) adds an extract from a letter by Dr. King, dated Calcutta, 22nd August 1893 : "I do not believe in the existence of the species Wallich called M. nepalensis.  I have never been able to hear of, or find, any specimens of a big non-stoloniferous plantain on the lower slopes of the Himalaya.   I have made enquiries in Nepal where Wallich says it grows.  Wallich must have described Roxburgh's M. glauca under the name nepalensis". 

King's remark cannot be reconciled with some modern floras (e.g. Hara et al 1978 and Noltie 1994) that include Ensete glaucum in the flora of Nepal.  What is Ensete glaucum (previously Musa glauca) if not "a big non-stoloniferous plantain on the lower slopes of the Himalaya"?  But perhaps King was right after all.   Recent enquiries by Ganesh Mani Pradhan in east Nepal and north east India confirm King's comments; no-one has heard of or can find Ensete glaucum in the wild.   Wallich's plants remain something of a mystery.  However, from Hore et al 1992 it seems that Ensete glaucum does occur in the remote north eastern state of Mizoram.

The identity of Wallich's Musa nepalensis remains a mystery.  Wallich gives its vernacular name in Newar Gompo as "kula" but this is no help either, the word is not Nepalese.  It may be a corruption of "kera" which is the local word for "banana".  Cheesman effectively concludes that Musa nepalensis is nomen dubium and ends his discussion thus:

"If M. nepalensis does exist, it belongs to Ensete ; but it does not seem immediately desirable to cumber the literature with a new combination to name so doubtful an entity."

Despite Cheesman specifically refraining from creating it, the combination Ensete nepalensis (N. Wallich) E. E. Cheesman is quoted twice by Simmonds 1960 (p. 207 and p. 212).  This is an unusual slip of the pen by the normally unimpeachable Simmonds, for there is no such combination in Cheesman's work.

Although Musa nepalensis does not exist the name has a nice ring to it and there are indeed records of it in the horticultural literature.   For example, there is a photograph labelled Musa nepalensis in Graf's Exotica but this is instead, presumably, a young Ensete glaucum or possibly Musa balbisiana.  Graf also mentions having actually seen Musa nepalensis in Nepal.  Again he must have seen either Ensete glaucum, in cultivation not wild, or mistaken wild Musa balbisiana for the mythical Musa nepalensis.  Moore 1957 commented (p. 188) that  "seed purportedly of this species has been listed by one domestic and one foreign source since 1950 but I have not seen living plants".

Type:   Wallich s. n. Identity uncertain (Hara et al., 1978: 62-63).