Verticicladiella huntii was not described in Robinson-Jeffrey's 1964 manuscript, in this publication Ceratocystis huntii is explicitly described, but the anamorph is only alluded to such as “Conidiophores of the Leptographium type, with sporogenous cells frequently bearing two or three sympodioconidia as is characteristic of the genus Verticicladiella” in fact the author states: “Imperfect states ... are too generalized to be of much diagnostic value.”. This error arose from Wingfield's 1985 paper (pg. 92) in which he used Verticicladiella huntii as the basionym for the combination Leptographium huntii. The journal volume was also erroneous given as 40 rather than 42.