Thought I recognized this. [It appears in Benham, Earnest, Hsia, and Hung (1990), Theorem 1, item (3.4).][1] Page 6.

    =====Discriminant     ==Genus Size==    3
    
    [ 1, 1, 32, 0, 0, 0 ]
    [ 2, 2, 9, 2, -2, 0 ]
    
    ---**----- end of  spinor genus  1    --------
    
    [ 1, 4, 9, -4, 0, 0 ]
    
    ---**----- end of  spinor genus  2    --------


The loner is one of the very few spinor regular forms that are not regular. The following constitutes a proof that $\langle 1,4,9,4,0,0 \rangle$ does not lie in the same spinor genus as $\langle 1,1,32,0,0,0 \rangle:$ we have
$$ x^2 + 4 y^2 + 9 z^2 + 4yz \neq 2 m^2, $$
where all prime factors $p$ of $m$ satisfy $p \equiv 1 \pmod 4.$ There are often elementary proofs of spinor exceptional integers, once they have been noticed. In this case,
$$ x^2 + (2y+z)^2 \neq 2 (m-2z)(m+2z),  $$
where a crucial detail is that $z$ is odd.

This is a proof because of the [Corollary to Theorem 3 of Duke and Schulze-Pillot][2] as it is not hard to prove that the first form primitively represents all such $2m^2.$


  [1]: http://zakuski.math.utsa.edu/~kap/Benham_Earnest_Hsia_Hung_1990.pdf
  [2]: http://zakuski.math.utsa.edu/~kap/Duke_Schulze_Pillot_1990.pdf