Place of publication:
Bidr. Egefam. 24. 1871; Kongel. Danske Vidensk. Selsk. Skr., Naturvidensk. Math. Afd. ser. 5, 9:354. 1873
Comment:
since this name was originally based on Fagus procera Poepp. & Endl., this was an illegitimate later homonym (non Salisb.; Melbourne ICN Art. 53), so there is no parenthetical authorship (Melbourne ICN Art. 58)