Hemming (1967) stated:-
The taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio tircis Stoll is currently treated subjectively on taxonomic grounds as being the same as that represented by the older-established nominal species Papilio phryne Pallas, 1771 (Reise verschied. Prov. Russisch. Reichs 1 : 470).
Herrich-Schaeffer, when establishing the genus Phryne, cited the specific name phryne in the synonymy of Papilio tircis Stoll, and, if he had placed more than one nominal species as belonging to his genus Phryne, his citation of the specific name phryne Pallas in the manner indicated above would under Article 68 (d) of the Code automatically have made Papilio phryne Pallas the type-species of this genus by tautonymy. The fact that he recognized one nominal species only, namely Papilio tircis Stoll, as belonging to this genus makes that species the type-species by monotypy under Article 68 (c), which is very tightly drawn and expressly directs that in the case of monotypical genera cited synonyms of the name of the type-species are to be disregarded.
Until recently the name Phryne Herrich-Schaeffer was invalid, as being a junior homonym of the older name Phryne Meigen, 1800 (Nouvelle Classification Mouches deux Ailes : 16). As such, it was replaced by the name Triphysa Zeller, 1850, the name by which this genus has ever since been known. The stability so established was endangered some years ago when an application was submitted to the Commission on behalf of specialists in the Order Diptera for the suppression under the Plenary Powers of Meigen's Nouvelle Classification, for, unless preventive action was taken, the name Phryne Herrich-Schaeffer in the Lepidoptera would have become an available name and would have taken the place of its well-known replacement name Triphysa Zeller. In order to prevent this objectionable development, the Commission, when suppressing the Meigen pamphlet of 1800, used its Plenary Powers also to suppress the name Phryne Herrich-Schaeffer for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, at the same time placing that name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 1652. This decision was promulgated by the Commission in its Opinion 678, published in October 1963 (Bull. Zool. Nom. 20 : 339-342).
The higher classification used here follows Lamas (2008).
Learn more about Nymphalidae in Wikipedia
Search the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) for references to PHRYNE and included species.