Plate 66. 
EQUISETUM vaeiegtAtum, ScMeich. 
Variegated Hough Horse-tail . 
Equxsetum (§ Hyemalia) variegatuni; small; stems filiform, often decumbent, 
rough, branched chiefly at the base, with four to ten furrows; sheaths green 
below, black above, with white or black-edged, membranous, obtuse, some¬ 
what bristle-pointed teeth; catkin terminal, mucronate. 
Equisetum variegatum. Schleick. Cat. PI. Helv. p. 27. Willd. Sp. PI. v. 5. 
p. 7. Engl. Pot. t. 1987. Sm. Engl. Elora, v. 4 . p. 840. Hook, and Am. 
Brit. EL. ed. 8. p. 601. Newm. Brit. Ferns, p. 31, and at p. 39 his ear. 
Wilsoni, {erect, two to three feet high and smooth). Koch, Si/n. El. Germ. ed. 
2. v. 2 .p. 967. (Under this species Koch brings as a synonym E. reptans, /3 
variegatum, Wahl. Lapp. p. 298.) 
Equisetum scirpoides? Mich. El. Bor. Am. p. 281. 
Hah. Sandy sea-shores, New Brighton, Cheshire; Bootle and South Port, Lan¬ 
cashire ; Portmarnock sands; sands of Barrie, Dundee.—Yar. Wilsoni (if 
really belonging to this species), Muckross, Killarney, W. Wilson. 
That which is usually considered to be the true Equisetum 
appears with us to be confined to sandy dunes near the sea. The 
var. Wilsoni of Mr. Newman is found in water; enough in it¬ 
self to produce a considerable difference between the two. But 
it is quite certain the limits of the species, belonging to the 
“ Hyemalia 55 group, are far from being well defined, and they re¬ 
quire to be studied, if possible, in their fresh state, and by means 
of copious suites of specimens from different localities. It is 
better in the meanwdiile to doubt than to run headlong into con¬ 
clusions. Hewett Watson says truly of E. variegatum , “While 
on the one side it makes some approach to E. palustre , in the 
small forms of this latter, on the other side E. variegatum shades 
off through Wilsoni and Maclmii , almost to E. liyemale. I am 
not suggesting that all these should be united into one species, 
but that the intervening species (one or more) between palustre 
and liyemale is not clearly understood by the technical diagnosis 
hitherto attempted to be drawn. 55 Dr. Arnott and myself, too, 
have said in Brit. Flora, “ It is very doubtful if the colour of the 
sheaths or the number of their teeth afford sufficient distinguish¬ 
ing characters; so that Mr. Newman was probably correct when 
