I came up on this perfect situation with both regia and oleracea, almost side by side and thought this would make a great post for Palmtalk. To the left is the regular regia-the Cuban royal. To the right is oleracea--the Venezuelan royal.

Notice how regia has a full crown with leaves falling below 9 and 3 o'clock--the leaves are also plumose... Now look at the trunk; it has bulges in the trunk.

Now look at oleracea. The fronds never fall below horizontal and the trunk is completely uniform--this palm is rarely ever seen in South Florida, compared to it's Cuban cousin. It is also much more sensitive to our occasional cold fronts. Small ones are suceptible and I have witnessed juveniles croak from freezsing temps.

Nice comparison Andrew! I am sure R. oleracea gets to be much better than this specimen but overall, that is why i chose to grow R. regia instead, the huge, full crown of leafs

Funny you think that--maybe it's the photos... I think oleracea is the better looking palm, and it looked more than healthy--the one in the photos.

Nice side by side shot good work.

Very nice comparison, and spot on as to hardiness, too.

Very nice comparison, and spot on as to hardiness, too.

Dave - are you inferring that you have experienced the Roystonea oleracea dooming of death

R. oleracea is beautiful in the tropics and not that bunched up like this one looks. Regia seems to have longer leafs in the photo and be a more robust palm, normally they are about equal in leaf and trunk size. R. oleracea is a beautiful species in the tropics and not with leafs that bunched up together. From the 2 in photos, R. regia is the Royal to my eyes, maybe due to my subjective preference for droopier, lush palms! Maybe its different up close and its just the photo, as you say. Most i have seen in photos from cultivation in drier areas, are like that but i did saw a beautiful one in one of FL's old gardens, don't remember which one though. I think what may play a big role is water availability. R. regia seems to be adapted to some drought, plus its native to FL while R. oleracea may have higher water needs to grow as lushly due to being native to very rainy, tropical areas.

Love seeing regia all over Florida on my trips there, huge, full crowns and a smooth, fat, white trunk!

Btw, the Bismarckia's in the photo are awesome!!!

Ahhhhh, excellent post mandrew!! I'm sure you have cleared up a lot of confusion on folks IDing these guys wrong. Me being one of them

Funny thing mentioned above--that oleracea needs more water than regia does. I am not sure this is so cut and dry. I have seen regia in dry spots die--they need lots and lots of water to 'act right'. In fact, native habitat for regia is often mangrove swamp where the palms sit in water that never dries up. I have also seen oleracea next to a water course--the trunks crack and fissure from too much water. Yes, oleracea is more tropical and as such, is more used to high rainfall and less cold. My observations are that oleracea is not as drought tolerant as regia is, but it is not as water tolerant as regia either. I hope this helps with further cultivation of these two palms.

Great info Andrew! Thanks for sharing!

Very nice comparison, and spot on as to hardiness, too.

Dave - are you inferring that you have experienced the Roystonea oleracea dooming of death

I have experienced it, yes.

Very nice comparison, and spot on as to hardiness, too.

Dave - are you inferring that you have experienced the Roystonea oleracea dooming of death

I have experienced it, yes.

nothing worse than the sad demise of a good palm (friend)

cool, thanks!

Noticed same thing on a trip to Hawaii, where a beautiful row of R oleraceas was planted, and then something must have happened to one, and it was replaced by another Royal (regia most likely), sadly to a rather disrupting effect. R oleraceas are far nicer looking palms.

Photo near downtown Hilo.

Geoff, I could not agree more. I find the irregular trunk size of regia to be unsightly and I prefer the upright crown of oleracea.

I think R. oleracea is the nicer of the two species, and they seem to grow much faster in my limited experience. I have the two species grown side by side and the R. oleracea consistently puts out two leaves for every one that the R. regia does.

I actually like the full crown of regia

I actually like the full crown of regia

It is more "majestic", but I much prefer the non-buldging trunk of R. oleracea. All of the century old regias in Manatee county look like someone squeezed the top 20 feet of trunk through a toothpaste tube.

I actually like the full crown of regia

It is more "majestic", but I much prefer the non-buldging trunk of R. oleracea. All of the century old regias in Manatee county look like someone squeezed the top 20 feet of trunk through a toothpaste tube.

Whould that be a K deficiency ?

I wish more people here in coastal San Diego would grow the R. Oleracea in place of R. G.

Great comparison photo. Thanks

Great thread Andrew. For what it's worth, my initial reason to grow ollies instead of cubans was because of their palm rarity across the board. There are trillions of regias around Sth East Queensland and Australia, very common, but way less ollies in comparison. Having said that, the other reasons for selection of oleracea is because of their absolute awesome intimidating stature and after I saw those monsters at the Rockhampton botanical gardens I was hooked.

Andrew,I "agree" that Oleracea is by far the "grandest" of the Roystonea's, and its leaves/fronds on a well grown Oleracea are a good 1.5mtrs "longer" than Regia, your pictured Roy O looks to have quite short upright leaves , they should be much longer and well curved.

Like Wal said, the Roy O's at Rockhampton are "Immense" , prob 3 x taller and twice as wide as the Roy O I posted last week.

Pete

I have always preferred R. oleracea and was looking at planting some here in my new garden.......... I have a seasonally wet, boggy area but instead I have chosen R. regia for their ability to withstand boggy conditions. Not sure how well R. oleracea will go in those conditions.

Oli and bizzi

Edited December 13, 201411 yr by fan palm

R.o is king of the genus for sure. I remember seeing some monsters in Charters Towers, QLD many years ago. They were street trees and had the whitest trunks I've ever seen on a royal. They were large and healthy, unusual because the climate there is quite dry. The Rocky oleracea are mind numbing when you see them in person, but some of the photos of those in New Caledonia and Brazil are out of this world. R.regia is a nice palm, but not in the same league IMO.

Daryl

This is R.oleracea in Diyabubulla Sri Lanka:

I believe it's used to grow in wet situation half of the year:

I have always preferred R. oleracea and was looking at planting some here in my new garden.......... I have a seasonally wet, boggy area but instead I have chosen R. regia for their ability to withstand boggy conditions. Not sure how well R. oleracea will go in those conditions.

Only one way to find out Andrew

Yeah true Wal.............just have to source some Ollies

I like the look of Regia more. Regia looks more lush.

I think this maybe another example like yours.... I took these pics on the Little Manatee River, these homes would be in Ruskin...

I think the R.oleracea is a far more noble palm than R.regia.

Do I feel that a poll is needed? Though the oleracea is clearly unique and beautiful, I think I have to side with those in favor of regia, it's so full and lush, how could the 'Royal' not be king of the genus?

I love the side by side photos everyone, maybe let's see two more photos, the most full, lush, healthy, prime specimen of each, and then compare which is the best.

I think this maybe another example like yours.... I took these pics on the Little Manatee River, these homes would be in Ruskin...

All of the palms in your photo are regias.

Here is a photo-of-a-photo of two different types of Royals. One with upright fronds, and the other with fronds pointed down.

http://www.palmtalk.org/forum/uploads/monthly_03_2011/post-147-000776500%201300021361.jpg

Here is a photo-of-a-photo of two different types of Royals. One with upright fronds, and the other with fronds pointed down.

http://www.palmtalk.org/forum/uploads/monthly_03_2011/post-147-000776500%201300021361.jpg

You are giving an example from another photo--different photos--different palms. Where have you heard that trait to merit the differentiation of a species?..

Here is a photo-of-a-photo of two different types of Royals. One with upright fronds, and the other with fronds pointed down.

http://www.palmtalk.org/forum/uploads/monthly_03_2011/post-147-000776500%201300021361.jpg

You are giving an example from another photo--different photos--different palms. Where have you heard that trait to merit the differentiation of a species?..

R. oleracea are upright, regia can be either (but tend to be droopy with age). To me, the biggest trait that differentiates the two is the leaf plumosity. R. oleracea leaves just have a different look from any other royal.

Here is a photo-of-a-photo of two different types of Royals. One with upright fronds, and the other with fronds pointed down.

http://www.palmtalk.org/forum/uploads/monthly_03_2011/post-147-000776500%201300021361.jpg

You are giving an example from another photo--different photos--different palms. Where have you heard that trait to merit the differentiation of a species?..

R. oleracea are upright, regia can be either (but tend to be droopy with age). To me, the biggest trait that differentiates the two is the leaf plumosity. R. oleracea leaves just have a different look from any other royal.

Zeeth, I was hinting to the fact that hanging fronds are not at all an indicator of a certain species.