Hemming (1967) stated:-
Scudder erroneously supposed that Arhopala phryxus was the only species included in this genus by Boisduval and accordingly stated that that species was the type-species by monotypy. This misconception on Scudder's part does not detract from the force of his statement that Arhopala phryxus was the type-species and accordingly that statement ranks as a valid type-selection. (Previously, in 1840 (Hist. nat. Ins. 3 : 462) Blanchard had selected Papilio apidanus Cramer, , but this action was invalid, because that nominal species was not included in Arhopala by Boisduval at the time when he established that genus. Although, as explained above, Papilio apidanus is not the type-species of Arhopala, it was, until the revision of the Arhopala-Group by Evans (1957), commonly regarded as being congeneric with Arhopala phryxus. Inevitably, therefore, at the time when Papilio apidanus was erroneously believed to be the type-species of the older-established genus Amblypodia Horsfield, , the name Arhopala Boisduval was (equally incorrectly) treated as a junior subjective synonym of Amblypodia. When however it was established that the above view in regard to the type-species of Amblypodia was incorrect, the name Arhopala was once more (correctly) recognised as the oldest available generic name for the group always known as the Arhopala-Group. This purely taxonomic question is referred to here, in order to put on record that the name, if it can be so called, Amblypodia auct. nec Horsfield falls in the synonymy of Arhopala Boisduval in the broad sense in which that name was used prior to Evans's revision of the Arhopala-Group. Though Papilio apidanus, the former pseudotype of Amblypodia, is still treated as a member of the Arhopala-Group, it is no longer - under Evans's arrangement - treated as actually being a member of the genus Arhopala (sens. str.), having been removed to the genus Flos Doherty, 1889, of which it is the type-species by original designation. (Prior to Evans's revision, the name Flos Doherty, it may be noted, never won any general acceptance and was treated as being no more than a junior subjective synonym of Arhopala.)
The nominal species Arhopala phryxus Boisduval, the type-species of Arhopala, is currently treated subjectively on taxonomic grounds as representing the same taxon as that represented by the older-established nominal species Papilio helius Cramer,  (Uitl. Kapellen 3 (17) : 15, pl. 201, figs F. G). This name is not however available for the present species because it is a homonym of the name Papilio helius Cramer (ibidem. 3 (17) : 10, pl. 198, fig. B) (a name applying to a species of a different family) and precedence was given by the First Reviser (Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butts 1 : 121) to the name as applied on page 10 (pl. 198), to the non-Lycaenid species, over this name as applied on page 15 (pl. 201) to the present Lycaenid species. This selection was made under the misapprehension that the principle of page precedence applied in cases of this sort, but this does not invalidate the choice then made as to the relative precedence to be accorded to these two names, which was quite definite and is therefore valid (Article 24 (a)).
ARHOPALA was included within the subfamily LYCAENIDAE: LYCAENINAE by Ackery et al., in Kristensen (1999).
The higher classification used here follows Lamas (2008).
Learn more about Lycaenidae in Wikipedia
Search the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) for references to ARHOPALA and included species.