This taxon has caused and continues to cause problems for taxonomists and its status is still somewhat controversial.
The plant was first formally named by A. R. Franchet in 1889 who placed it in the genus Musa, as Musa lasiocarpa, but in a new section he named Musella. In 1947 Cheesman examined herbarium material at Kew and on the evidence before him commented that "whatever it may be, it is certainly not a Musa sensu strictiore" and was not therefore prepared to separate the plant from Ensete. While noting that further study might find that the plant represented a new genus Cheesman thus created the combination Ensete lasiocarpum while reviving the genus Ensete in his 1947 paper.
Norman Simmonds (1960) disagreed with Cheesman although he acknowledged that the general appearance of the plant did indeed suggest an Ensete. Simmonds noted however that the "perianth structure is like that of Musa" and that the "perianth characters are critically diagnostic of genus". Although it is clear that he had not actually seen a living plant Simmonds thus preferred to regard the plant as Musa lasiocarpa.
Other taxonomists consider the plant to be an anomaly in both Musa and Ensete and in 1978 C. Y. Wu raised Musella to the status of a separate genus. John Kress at the Smithsonian Institution has (as yet unpublished) molecular as well as morphological data to support Musella's status as a distinct, monotypic genus. We await the publication of this definitive work.
In 2002 a new Musella species, M. splendida, was reported from Vietnam, see http://www.inibap.org/publications/infomusa/INFO11.2-GB.pdf. It is most likely that M. splendida is the same as M. lasiocarpa.
Reference: David Constantine http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~drc/genusmusella.htm