Ah! Thank you once again for your time and knowledge.
I looked up Lewis & Short, eX, and the definition of “iracundus” fits exactly what you said, and not as I was saying. I was wrong and “iracundus” (classical) seems the equivalent of the later word “irascibilis” (post-classical). Sorry for misleading you, when you were right the whole time about “iracundus”. So, “iracundus” as you said, and not “citò iracundus” as I said.
“Irascundus” apud dictionarium Lewis & Short inquisivi. Ego erravi et tu rectè dixisti. “Iracundus” (classicè) et “irascibilis” (post-classicè) synonyma sunt. Me excusas, eX, qui te (semper de “iracundus” adjectivo benè dicentem) decepi. 
Salve Adriane, si vales, bene est, ego valeo.
Thank you for this new info. You have no need to apologise, you have helped me and I appreciate it. There is no deception when one believes he speaks honestly.
Di te incolumem custodiant.
eX