Yes, a groundcover can be a spreading plant that covers the ground that may
be too fleshy to walk on with bare feet but still they are plants that
spread horizontally and are not tall shrubs.

Calling a thicket of spiny shrubs is really distorting the meaning of
groundcover to the absurd no matter how anyone tries to justify it. A more
appropriate term for their use would be hedge or living fence. Most popular
horticultural references are flawed anyway and typically screw up out of
ignorance when it comes to succulent and xerophytic plants and their uses.

None of the spinescent "Crown of Thorns" are horizontal growers. I should
know, I have compiled a complete listing of all the species in the group
that is Euphorbia subgenus Lacanthis.


Frogleg wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:23:15 GMT, "Cereoid-UR12-"
wrote:

Groundcovers cover the ground and are typically something that can be
walked
on.

Back it up, Cereoid. If you search on "crown of thorns" groundcover
(or "ground cover") you will find many references with the 2
associated terms. "Groundcover" pretty much means something relatively
low-growing that covers the ground -- i.e., spreads and presents a
reasonable facade of respectably ordered landscape. Grass, ivy,
portulaca, and (oh, the poetry) chamomile. You don't have to enjoy
walking on it with bare feet for have it qualify as groundcover. I
believe when you identified it with the correct name, the first
reference I turned up said "ground cover, zones 10-11". Certainly a
surprise to me, but evidently an not uncommon use.