"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
K writes:
|
| Both are deciduous, so there will be light and water in spring. Even
| bluebells don't do well under evergreens, even when there is plenty of
| water.
|
| Both had good leaf cover before the lily of the valley appeared, so I'm
| not sure how valid the argument about light is. Water is likely to be
| the key factor.

Could well be, but they still wouldn't make dense shade - there is a
world of difference between the shade under such things and under, say,
solid holly or conifers. They (like bluebells etc.) certainly thrive
on a fraction the amount of light that most grasses need, but I have
never seen any photosynthetic plant do well in the UK in dense shade
(unicellular algae excluded), water or no water.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Just to complicate things my Lily -of -the -valley do fine (too fine) in
full sun
They are a perennial weed which run several metres each year. I admit that
they are partly shaded by up and coming perennials.
Of much more importance to me is your comment about no plants doing well in
dense shade. Can you clarify your comment as I think I have several plants
which prefer dense shade ?