This is due to how Damus/Primal handles NIP-10 and nostr:reference
The Daniel's note in question has 3 different mentions/references

** Embedded note that Daniel wanted to mention (this uses nostr: format)

nostr:nevent1qqsr7hj00rtm00h8uyvhs0jfvzy2zeh5fdktn9c73rhzlwthp95tj5cpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqzyrhxagf6h8l9cjngatumrg60uq22v66qz979pm32v985ek54ndh8gqcyqqqqqqgd2l60l

**Onyx's note to which The Daniel replied 
(This is in NIP-10 format with "reply" marker)

nostr:nevent1qqs94afkfchld4zc9hkaenttdwnaaf8z6qvywnqu28879seds49xqjcmntm6u

** The Daniel's original note "Never forget..." to which Onyx replied (This is in NIP-10 format with "root" marker)

nostr:nevent1qqswgsj7s2vfkhkj8ejhy4tzc633cj3fvmf8f3zy2hlqx3z6ulpuy4gpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqzyrhxagf6h8l9cjngatumrg60uq22v66qz979pm32v985ek54ndh8gqcyqqqqqqgvzxrmj

I am not sure why the nostr: embedded reference was ignored by Damus & "root" note is shown instead. 
Maybe it's because the quote format is different in Damus -- it's uses a "q" tag instead of "e" tag 🤷‍♀️
 I am not even sure what you're seeing in this post of mine as I am adding Amethyst too to the mix now 😅😅 

 Thank you @சாரு-秋陽

Yeah NIP-10 is a bit janky, and the devs dont have a test suite as of today. Hence why results differ.

Bookmarked for #nostrability analysis.