Coutareopsis includes three shrubby species found in dry valleys high in the Andes. These are similar in most of their characters, but show a range of flower forms that suggests they are adapted for different pollinators. These species have generally short internodes and often well developed short-shoots; medium-sized to small leaves that often have pubescent domatia; short, triangular, persistent stipules; 5-6-merous flowers that are solitary or borne in small cymes on the apices of the main stems or short-shoots; calyx limbs lobed nearly to the base; tubular to funnelform, pink to red, medium-sized (2-2.5 cm) corollas; and rounded, markedly flattened, somewhat small (1-2 cm) functionally septicidal capsules with several flattened, marginally winged, medium-sized (6-8 mm) seeds. These species are perhaps (or probably) deciduous. The capsules are lenticellate.

Coutareopsis, and especially Coutareopsis andrei, is similar to the single sympatric species of Motleyothamnus and these are frequently confused. The similarity of these was noted by Taylor & Lorence (2010: 96, as Coutarea and Exostema), who noted that Motleyothamnus differs in its stems with regularly developed internodes and its salverform corollas with the lobes as long as or longer than the tube. The analysis of Paudyal & Delprete (2018) found these two genera as sisters on a monophyletic clade, but separated them; according to their explicit taxonomic criterion, their separation of a monotypic genus required an autapomorphic morphological character that distinguished it. They cited no specific morphological character for their separation here, but did outline its separation from other genera in the analysis. They (2018: 379) did state that they regarded the corolla form of Motleyothamnus as different from that of Coutareopsis, and this may have beeen the autoapomorphy used to separate it; however, they also stated, in their immediately preceding sentence here, that they considered the corolla form of Motleyothamnus to be the same as that of Coutareopsis coutaportloides and they cited no other morphological differences between these genera. Their formal diagnosis of Motleyothamnus as a new genus contrasted it only with Solenandra, which was not found to be closely related in their analysis. They separated Coutareopsis from Motleyothamnus in another part of the text (2018: 379), and distinguished Coutareopsis by its "1- to 3-flowered inflorescences on short-shoots" in contrast to cymose, several-flowered, terminal inflorescences in Motleyothamnus. However, Coutareopsis coutaportloides has inflorescences that are usually terminal on the main stems and it usually lacks short-shoots (Taylor & Lorence, 2010). Given the molecular placement of Coutareopsis and Motleyothamnus as a monophyletic group, the range of corolla forms and colors already included in Coutaropsis, the sympatric range of these, and the inaccurate analysis of the characters of Coutareopsis that were used to separate these genera, Motleyothamnus cannot be regarded as a strongly distinct genus. 

Coutareopsis is also similar to Coutarea, which can be separated by its larger corollas that are zygomorphic at anthesis, exserted anthers, and habitat generally at lower elevations, 0-1500 m. See the discussion of the relationships between these found by Paudyal et al. (2018) on the Coutarea page. 

Author: C.M. Taylor.
The content of this web page was last revised on 8 April 2021.
Taylor web page: http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/curators/taylor.shtml

• Taylor, C. M. & D. H. Lorence. 2010. Rubiacearum americanarum magna hama pars XXII: Notable new species of South American Coutarea, Morinda, Patima, and Rosenbergiodendron. Novon 20(1): 95–105.
• Paudyal, S.K., P. G. Delprete, S. Neupane & T. J. Motley. 2018. Molecular phylogenetic analysis ad generic delimitations in tribe Chioccceae (Cinchonoideae, Rubiaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 187: 365-396.