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 versch. Prov. Russisch. Reichs 1 : 470).
Zeller introduced the name Triphysa as a replacement for the name Phryne Herrich-Schaeffer, 1844. Zeller did not explain why he considered that the name Phryne Herrich-Schaeffer required to be replaced, but, having regard to the view strongly held throughout most of the XIXth century that tautonomy between a generic name and the specific name of an included species was not permissible, it may reasonably be concluded that the reason why Zeller considered that the generic name Phryne Herrich-Schaeffer was invalid was that (as shown above) the type-species (Papilio tircis) was subjectively identified with a species (Papilio phryne) having a specific name consisting of the same word. No provision on these lines was included in the Code adopted by the Berlin Congress in 1901 ; indeed the reverse view was taken by that Congress in Article 30 (d) and this appears in the current Code as Article 68 (d). While the foregoing argument outlined above does not - or would not - constitute a valid reason for rejecting the name Phryne Herrich-Schaeffer and replacing it with the name Triphysa, there was however a reason unknown to Zeller for rejecting the name Phryne Herrich-Schaeffer, namely that that name is a junior homonym of the older name Phryne Meigen, 1800 (Nouv. Class. Mouches à deux Ailes : 16). In these circumstances Phryne Herrich-Schaeffer is invalid as a junior homonym of Phryne Meigen, and its replacement name Triphysa Zeller is an available name. At this point it is necessary to take note that in the early years of the present century Hendel brought forward Meigen's Nouv. Class. from the oblivion in which it had lain for a hundred years and that this action of his sparked off a controversy which was to divide dipterists for half a century. Finally, some years ago Dr. C. W. Sabrosky proposed to the Commission that an end should be put to argument on this subject by the suppression of Meigen's names of 1800 under the Plenary Powers. In the subsequent discussion I suggested as Secretary to the Commission (a post then occupied by myself) that, if Dr. Sabrosky's proposal were to be approved by the Commission, steps should be taken to preserve for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy those of the Meigen names proposed for suppression which were senior homonyms of generic names elsewhere in the animal kingdom which had on that account been rejected and replaced - the purpose of this suggestion being to prevent the rejection of the replacement names concerned, which would otherwise follow upon the suppression of the older Meigen homonyms. These proposals were approved in principle by the Commission, which however ultimately decided to secure the desired end by a different method, that is, while rejecting in its entirety Meigen's Nouvelle Classification and consequently all the new names introduced in it, to suppress also those names elsewhere in the animal kingdom which were junior homonyms of Meigen-1800 names, and as such, had been replaced by other names. This procedure served to protect the position of the replacement names in question and thus made it possible for the Nouvelle Classifications to be dealt with in the manner desired by dipterists without causing objection- able name-changing in other groups. The Commission's decision was embodied in its Opinion 678 published in October 1963 (Bull. zool. Nom. 20 : 339-342), in which the name Phryne Herrich-Schaeffer, 1844, was suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. This action completely safeguarded the position of the name Triphysa Zeller, which remained the oldest available name for the genus in question.
Cowan (1970: 56) stated:-
TRIPHYSA, para 3 : As Butler, 1868 : 48 noted, Zeller himself explained that he introduced the name Triphysa to replace Phryne because the latter was invalidated by the Reptile Phryne Fitzinger, 1843. Zeller was an assistant of Agassiz for his Nomenclator, in which Meigen's name was not recorded.
The higher classification used here follows Lamas (2008).
Learn more about Nymphalidae in Wikipedia
Search the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) for references to TRIPHYSA and included species.