I will briefly work in all your objections and Watson's.

I labour under a great difficulty from feeling sure that, with what very little systematic work I have done, small genera were more interesting and therefore more attracted my attention.
One of your remarks I do not see the bearing of under your point of view--namely, that in monotypic genera "the variation and variability" are "much more frequently noticed" than in polytypic genera.

I hardly like to ask, but this is the only one of your arguments of which I do not see the bearing; and I certainly should be very glad to know.

I believe I am the slowest (perhaps the worst) thinker in England; and I now consequently fully admit the full hostility of Urticaceae, which I will give in my tables.
I will make no remarks on your objections, as I do hope you will read my MS., which will not cost you much trouble when fairly copied out.

From my own experience, I hardly believe that the most sagacious observers, without counting, could have predicted whether there were more or fewer recorded varieties in large or small genera; for I found, when actually making the list, that I could never strike a balance in my mind,--a good many varieties occurring together, in small or in large genera, always threw me off the balance...
P.S .-- I have just thought that your remark about the much variation of monotypic genera was to show me that even in these, the smallest genera, there was much variability.