On comparing the three arrangements we have outlined, it will be seen that the chief discrepancies they present come under two heads: (1) The treatment of the Neuroptera, opinions differing as to whether these Insects shall be grouped as a single Order, or shall be divided into numerous Orders; and as to what, if this latter course be adopted, the divisions shall be. (2) The treatment of the parasitic groups Mallophaga, Aphaniptera, etc. {177}It must be admitted that whichever of the three systems we have sketched be adopted, the result is, as regards both these points, open to criticism. The Order Neuroptera, if we take it in the broad sense, differs from the other Orders in the greater variety of metamorphosis exhibited by its members; while if, on the contrary, it be dismembered, we get a number of groups of very unequal extent and not distinguished from one another by the same decisive and important characters as are the other Orders of which they are considered equivalent. The discrepancy exists in nature, and can scarcely be evaded by any system. A similar observation may be made as to the parasitic groups, viz. Mallophaga, Anoplura, Aphaniptera, and Strepsiptera. If these be treated as separate Orders the result is not satisfactory; while, if they be associated with the larger groups to which they are respectively nearest allied, it is almost equally unsatisfactory. We may mention that Packard and Brauer have in their treatises discussed the question of super-orders, and have gone so far as to propose names for them. These two authorities do not however agree in their conclusions; and as the names proposed are of little practical value, and are but rarely met with, we need not explain them or discuss the comparative merits of the two systems.