In a recent paper the authors rejected the name Musa salaccensis. However, it was noticed later that the taxon was validly published by Backer (1924). As the original holotype was lost, a neotype is designated here. Also in the same paper Musa peekelii lectotype was designated based on an illustration. Later we received a sheet found at WRSL, taken from the type locality (Lauterbach 1914), and thus to be considered the holotype. Some orthographic notes are given in order to specify our recent article (Häkkinen & Väre 2008).