On Mar 6, 5:14 pm, "La Puce" wrote:
On 6 Mar, 16:20, "p.k." wrote:

La Puce wrote:
I've just received a post saying genista lydia. I didn't think of
'lydia' because it's usually very low, no more than 1/2ft high and
grown covering.

I don't think so:
original:http://www.pbase.com/rbel1/image/75228486/original
VS Genista lydiahttp://helmers.de/pflanzen/laubgehoelze/genista_lydia.JPG
It's always best to check a picture before identifying a plant.

Ho I do beleive me I do. I'm quite obsessed with searching! ;o) This
is what was sent to me. Other photos I have of this genista are in
flowers so I just can't see the swirls of the OP's original plant.

http://davesgarden.com/pf/showimage/3159/

And in any case it is very ground covering - so indeed it's not the
Lydia.

Good grief, it staggers from bad to worse. We would have more respect
for you if you simply said that you didn't know and that you had made
an error, end of story but no, you just dig deeper.