It has many unusual relict characteristics not found in most other Drosera species, including woody rhizomes, operculate pollen, and the lack of circinate vernation in scape growth.

All of these factors, combined with molecular data from phylogenetic analysis, contribute to the evidence that D. regia possesses some of the most ancient characteristics within the genus.

The lower elevation site is estimated to have about 50 mature plants, making it the most endangered Drosera species, since it is threatened with extinction in the wild.

[1][2][4][5] The unusual characteristics that set it apart from other species in the genus include the woody rhizome, undivided styles, and the operculate pollen.

[2][6] Drosera regia shares other features with the robust Tasmanian form of D. arcturi, including the lack of stipules and petioles and the non-circinate growth of the scape.

[1][3] The lower elevation site where D. regia is found is characterised by permanently damp soils consisting mostly of a gravel bench formed from a creek bed.

[1] In a 2009 report of a 2006 trip, botanist Andreas Fleischmann noted that the higher elevation site is overgrown with plants of the family Restionaceae and he could not locate any remaining D. regia.

The lower elevation site was in a similar state, but he recorded approximately 50 mature plants, making this one of the most critically endangered Drosera species.

[10] While D. regia has not been evaluated under the current International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) standards for a rating on the Red List of Threatened Species, the International Carnivorous Plant Society recognised D. regia on their list of imperiled carnivorous plant species.

[14] Stephens was informed about this new species by Mr. J. Rennie, who had found several plants growing by a stream in the upper end of "Baviaans Kloof" on Easter in 1923.

[4] Stephens placed D. regia in section Psychophila Planch., which at that time included D. arcturi, D. stenopetala, and D. uniflora, though she noted that the many-flowered inflorescence was unusual for this group.

[1] In 1970, the South African botanist Anna Amelia Obermeyer suggested that D. regia did not fit into any of the taxonomic groups established by Ludwig Diels in his 1906 monograph on the family.

Obermeyer noted the unusual characteristics that set D. regia apart from any other Drosera species: the operculate pollen, circinate leaf vernation, undivided styles, and woody rhizomes.

[2] In 1994, Rüdiger Seine and Wilhelm Barthlott proposed classifying D. regia as the sole species in a new subgenus, Drosera subg.

Chrtek and Slavíková cited the many morphological differences between D. regia and every other member of the genus Drosera in support of their decision to make this taxonomic split.

[19] They reaffirmed their taxonomic opinions in a 1999 article that also split the tuberous Drosera, members of the subgenus Ergaleium, to Johann Georg Christian Lehmann's resurrected genus Sondera.

[3] Its distinct morphology and unique relict characteristics, ones it likely shared with the common ancestor of all Drosera such as the operculate pollen, led early researchers to suggest its ancient position in the genus.

[22] Evidence for the evolution of "snap-traps" of Dionaea and Aldrovanda from a flypaper trap like D. regia has also emerged and been argued for based on molecular data.

The model proposes that plant carnivory by snap-trap evolved from the flypaper traps of Drosera, driven by increasing prey size.

For optimal growth, D. regia appears to require good soil drainage and sufficient light levels, and prefers cooler temperatures.