Does the Location of Line-Dash-Wedge Notations Matter? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Line structure of formaldehydeWedge Dash Diagram of 1,2-DichloroethaneDoes the arrangement of atoms around a chiral carbon matter?Single line equilibria notationDoes all organic matter originate from organisms?When does a reaction equation require the reversible sign and when does it not?Absolute configuration when hydrogen (lowest priority group) is in the plane of the page (and not a wedge or dash)R,S Configuration of asymmetric carbon atom when group priority 3 and 4 are not on wedge bond?What does the colon in µ-η2:η2-O2 mean?Hash and Wedge nomenclature
What is an "asse" in Elizabethan English?
The test team as an enemy of development? And how can this be avoided?
Project Euler #1 in C++
What does 丫 mean? 丫是什么意思?
How does light 'choose' between wave and particle behaviour?
How many morphisms from 1 to 1+1 can there be?
How many time has Arya actually used Needle?
Understanding p-Values using an example
Putting class ranking in CV, but against dept guidelines
Is multiple magic items in one inherently imbalanced?
Does any scripture mention that forms of God or Goddess are symbolic?
Why datecode is SO IMPORTANT to chip manufacturers?
What initially awakened the Balrog?
Mechanism of oxidative dearomatisation with hypervalent iodine
What to do with repeated rejections for phd position
Find Maximum of any discrete function (not necessarily a PDF)
How much damage would a cupful of neutron star matter do to the Earth?
How could we fake a moon landing now?
How did Fremen produce and carry enough thumpers to use Sandworms as de facto Ubers?
Converted a Scalar function to a TVF function for parallel execution-Still running in Serial mode
How do I find out the mythology and history of my Fortress?
What does Turing mean by this statement?
How were pictures turned from film to a big picture in a picture frame before digital scanning?
Should a wizard buy fine inks every time he want to copy spells into his spellbook?
Does the Location of Line-Dash-Wedge Notations Matter?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Line structure of formaldehydeWedge Dash Diagram of 1,2-DichloroethaneDoes the arrangement of atoms around a chiral carbon matter?Single line equilibria notationDoes all organic matter originate from organisms?When does a reaction equation require the reversible sign and when does it not?Absolute configuration when hydrogen (lowest priority group) is in the plane of the page (and not a wedge or dash)R,S Configuration of asymmetric carbon atom when group priority 3 and 4 are not on wedge bond?What does the colon in µ-η2:η2-O2 mean?Hash and Wedge nomenclature
$begingroup$
In Line-Dash-Wedge notation, when illustrating that an atom or bond is directed towards or away from the viewer (solid triangle for coming forward, dotted lines for going back), does the location of these lines matter when doing illustrations?
For example, a THC molecule.

The two hydrogen atoms there. Could they be placed inside the carbon rings instead of appearing outside, like below?

I understand that there's a whole host of issues with that otherwise, but just asking about the triangle and dashes in particular.
organic-chemistry bond stereochemistry notation
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In Line-Dash-Wedge notation, when illustrating that an atom or bond is directed towards or away from the viewer (solid triangle for coming forward, dotted lines for going back), does the location of these lines matter when doing illustrations?
For example, a THC molecule.

The two hydrogen atoms there. Could they be placed inside the carbon rings instead of appearing outside, like below?

I understand that there's a whole host of issues with that otherwise, but just asking about the triangle and dashes in particular.
organic-chemistry bond stereochemistry notation
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Yes they could be placed inside, it doesn't matter.
$endgroup$
– Ivan Neretin
Mar 23 at 7:02
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In Line-Dash-Wedge notation, when illustrating that an atom or bond is directed towards or away from the viewer (solid triangle for coming forward, dotted lines for going back), does the location of these lines matter when doing illustrations?
For example, a THC molecule.

The two hydrogen atoms there. Could they be placed inside the carbon rings instead of appearing outside, like below?

I understand that there's a whole host of issues with that otherwise, but just asking about the triangle and dashes in particular.
organic-chemistry bond stereochemistry notation
$endgroup$
In Line-Dash-Wedge notation, when illustrating that an atom or bond is directed towards or away from the viewer (solid triangle for coming forward, dotted lines for going back), does the location of these lines matter when doing illustrations?
For example, a THC molecule.

The two hydrogen atoms there. Could they be placed inside the carbon rings instead of appearing outside, like below?

I understand that there's a whole host of issues with that otherwise, but just asking about the triangle and dashes in particular.
organic-chemistry bond stereochemistry notation
organic-chemistry bond stereochemistry notation
edited Mar 23 at 8:38
andselisk
19.7k665128
19.7k665128
asked Mar 23 at 6:10
Westin JohnsonWestin Johnson
441
441
2
$begingroup$
Yes they could be placed inside, it doesn't matter.
$endgroup$
– Ivan Neretin
Mar 23 at 7:02
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Yes they could be placed inside, it doesn't matter.
$endgroup$
– Ivan Neretin
Mar 23 at 7:02
2
2
$begingroup$
Yes they could be placed inside, it doesn't matter.
$endgroup$
– Ivan Neretin
Mar 23 at 7:02
$begingroup$
Yes they could be placed inside, it doesn't matter.
$endgroup$
– Ivan Neretin
Mar 23 at 7:02
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yes, both inner and outer placements are possible with some nuances.
From Graphical representation of stereochemical configuration (IUPAC Recommendations 2006) [1, p. 1926]:
ST-1.3.2: Stereogenic centers at ring fusion atoms
Stereogenic centers at ring fusion atoms should be drawn with hashed wedged or solid wedged bonds to the exocyclic substituent at the fusion atom whenever possible. If necessary, an implicit hydrogen should be made explicit in order to provide an exocyclic substituent to bear the hashed wedged or solid wedged bond. When one of the fusion bonds is oriented vertically and the exocyclic substituent is graphically small (such as a hydrogen or a methyl group, or even such physically larger substituents as a phenyl group represented with a graphically small “Ph” group label), the exocyclic substituent is also
preferentially oriented vertically and opposite to the vertical fusion bond. This orientation is preferred even if it results in the substituent being placed within the ring system, and is particularly common in the depiction of steroids and other natural products.
From Graphical representation standards for chemical structure diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008) [2, p. 354–357]:
GR-4.2.2 Fusion atoms with one substituent drawn
Ring fusion atoms already have three bonds within the ring system. For external ring fusion atoms, the substituent should preferentially be positioned outside the ring system and oriented so that it bisects the angle between the adjacent bonds.
[...]
When two substituted fusion atoms are adjacent, placing both substituents outside the ring system will typically cause them to overlap. In those cases, it is better to draw one of the substituents within the ring system. A substituent drawn in this way should preferentially be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally, whichever direction would minimize overlap with other atoms and bonds.
If a substituted fusion atom is adjacent to an unsubstituted fusion atom, there typically is enough room to orient the substituent either inside or outside the ring system. That substituent should be oriented outside the ring system if all substituents can be oriented outwards, but should preferably be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally if any other substituent is placed within the ring system to avoid
conflict with an adjacent substituent.
Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9 atoms of steroids should be drawn within the ring system in this fashion even if there are no substituents on the adjacent fusion atoms C-10 and C-14. Certain other natural products [23] also have preferred orientations that place substituents within the ring system.
A substituent should not be oriented within a ring system when attached to a fusion atom that lacks any vertical or horizontal fusion bond. The substituent should be oriented outside the ring system, minimizing overlap as best as is possible. Sometimes, it might be possible to reorient the ring system so that the fusion bonds are vertical; the substituents should certainly be placed vertically if so.
It is not acceptable to orient two substituents within the same ring if the ring has fewer than eight atoms. One or both of the substituents should be oriented outside the ring system, minimizing overlap as best as is possible.
Substituents on interior fusion atoms have no option other than being drawn within the ring system. As above, such substituents should preferentially be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally, according to the direction that would minimize overlap with other atoms and bonds.
References
- Brecher, J. Graphical Representation of Stereochemical Configuration (IUPAC Recommendations 2006). Pure and Applied Chemistry 2009, 78 (10), 1897–1970. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200678101897. (Free Access)
- Brecher, J. Graphical Representation Standards for Chemical Structure Diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008). Pure and Applied Chemistry 2009, 80 (2), 277–410. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200880020277. (Free Access)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I have issues with some of the structures labelled "not acceptable." Yeah, some of them are not acceptable given overlap, but others are quite valid from first principles. Most particularly, in the section starting with "Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9," it seems extremely arbitrary to call the right structure "not acceptable."
$endgroup$
– Zhe
Mar 23 at 12:05
2
$begingroup$
@Zhe The way I interpret that section is that for particular classes of compounds (steroids for one) there's conventions on how you place those hydrogens, such that they will match across a diverse compound series (and with reader expectations). It's sort of like the conventions on how to orient certain molecules (e.g. for steroids the 5-member ring is in the upper right) - other ways of placing them (e.g. 5-member ring on the bottom or on the lower left) aren't technically incorrect, but are so against convention that you shouldn't do it.
$endgroup$
– R.M.
Mar 23 at 14:01
1
$begingroup$
That sounds 100% reasonable. Though I would strongly prefer the language of "unconventional" or "dispreferred" instead of "not acceptable."
$endgroup$
– Zhe
Mar 23 at 19:41
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "431"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f111394%2fdoes-the-location-of-line-dash-wedge-notations-matter%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yes, both inner and outer placements are possible with some nuances.
From Graphical representation of stereochemical configuration (IUPAC Recommendations 2006) [1, p. 1926]:
ST-1.3.2: Stereogenic centers at ring fusion atoms
Stereogenic centers at ring fusion atoms should be drawn with hashed wedged or solid wedged bonds to the exocyclic substituent at the fusion atom whenever possible. If necessary, an implicit hydrogen should be made explicit in order to provide an exocyclic substituent to bear the hashed wedged or solid wedged bond. When one of the fusion bonds is oriented vertically and the exocyclic substituent is graphically small (such as a hydrogen or a methyl group, or even such physically larger substituents as a phenyl group represented with a graphically small “Ph” group label), the exocyclic substituent is also
preferentially oriented vertically and opposite to the vertical fusion bond. This orientation is preferred even if it results in the substituent being placed within the ring system, and is particularly common in the depiction of steroids and other natural products.
From Graphical representation standards for chemical structure diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008) [2, p. 354–357]:
GR-4.2.2 Fusion atoms with one substituent drawn
Ring fusion atoms already have three bonds within the ring system. For external ring fusion atoms, the substituent should preferentially be positioned outside the ring system and oriented so that it bisects the angle between the adjacent bonds.
[...]
When two substituted fusion atoms are adjacent, placing both substituents outside the ring system will typically cause them to overlap. In those cases, it is better to draw one of the substituents within the ring system. A substituent drawn in this way should preferentially be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally, whichever direction would minimize overlap with other atoms and bonds.
If a substituted fusion atom is adjacent to an unsubstituted fusion atom, there typically is enough room to orient the substituent either inside or outside the ring system. That substituent should be oriented outside the ring system if all substituents can be oriented outwards, but should preferably be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally if any other substituent is placed within the ring system to avoid
conflict with an adjacent substituent.
Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9 atoms of steroids should be drawn within the ring system in this fashion even if there are no substituents on the adjacent fusion atoms C-10 and C-14. Certain other natural products [23] also have preferred orientations that place substituents within the ring system.
A substituent should not be oriented within a ring system when attached to a fusion atom that lacks any vertical or horizontal fusion bond. The substituent should be oriented outside the ring system, minimizing overlap as best as is possible. Sometimes, it might be possible to reorient the ring system so that the fusion bonds are vertical; the substituents should certainly be placed vertically if so.
It is not acceptable to orient two substituents within the same ring if the ring has fewer than eight atoms. One or both of the substituents should be oriented outside the ring system, minimizing overlap as best as is possible.
Substituents on interior fusion atoms have no option other than being drawn within the ring system. As above, such substituents should preferentially be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally, according to the direction that would minimize overlap with other atoms and bonds.
References
- Brecher, J. Graphical Representation of Stereochemical Configuration (IUPAC Recommendations 2006). Pure and Applied Chemistry 2009, 78 (10), 1897–1970. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200678101897. (Free Access)
- Brecher, J. Graphical Representation Standards for Chemical Structure Diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008). Pure and Applied Chemistry 2009, 80 (2), 277–410. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200880020277. (Free Access)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I have issues with some of the structures labelled "not acceptable." Yeah, some of them are not acceptable given overlap, but others are quite valid from first principles. Most particularly, in the section starting with "Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9," it seems extremely arbitrary to call the right structure "not acceptable."
$endgroup$
– Zhe
Mar 23 at 12:05
2
$begingroup$
@Zhe The way I interpret that section is that for particular classes of compounds (steroids for one) there's conventions on how you place those hydrogens, such that they will match across a diverse compound series (and with reader expectations). It's sort of like the conventions on how to orient certain molecules (e.g. for steroids the 5-member ring is in the upper right) - other ways of placing them (e.g. 5-member ring on the bottom or on the lower left) aren't technically incorrect, but are so against convention that you shouldn't do it.
$endgroup$
– R.M.
Mar 23 at 14:01
1
$begingroup$
That sounds 100% reasonable. Though I would strongly prefer the language of "unconventional" or "dispreferred" instead of "not acceptable."
$endgroup$
– Zhe
Mar 23 at 19:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, both inner and outer placements are possible with some nuances.
From Graphical representation of stereochemical configuration (IUPAC Recommendations 2006) [1, p. 1926]:
ST-1.3.2: Stereogenic centers at ring fusion atoms
Stereogenic centers at ring fusion atoms should be drawn with hashed wedged or solid wedged bonds to the exocyclic substituent at the fusion atom whenever possible. If necessary, an implicit hydrogen should be made explicit in order to provide an exocyclic substituent to bear the hashed wedged or solid wedged bond. When one of the fusion bonds is oriented vertically and the exocyclic substituent is graphically small (such as a hydrogen or a methyl group, or even such physically larger substituents as a phenyl group represented with a graphically small “Ph” group label), the exocyclic substituent is also
preferentially oriented vertically and opposite to the vertical fusion bond. This orientation is preferred even if it results in the substituent being placed within the ring system, and is particularly common in the depiction of steroids and other natural products.
From Graphical representation standards for chemical structure diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008) [2, p. 354–357]:
GR-4.2.2 Fusion atoms with one substituent drawn
Ring fusion atoms already have three bonds within the ring system. For external ring fusion atoms, the substituent should preferentially be positioned outside the ring system and oriented so that it bisects the angle between the adjacent bonds.
[...]
When two substituted fusion atoms are adjacent, placing both substituents outside the ring system will typically cause them to overlap. In those cases, it is better to draw one of the substituents within the ring system. A substituent drawn in this way should preferentially be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally, whichever direction would minimize overlap with other atoms and bonds.
If a substituted fusion atom is adjacent to an unsubstituted fusion atom, there typically is enough room to orient the substituent either inside or outside the ring system. That substituent should be oriented outside the ring system if all substituents can be oriented outwards, but should preferably be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally if any other substituent is placed within the ring system to avoid
conflict with an adjacent substituent.
Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9 atoms of steroids should be drawn within the ring system in this fashion even if there are no substituents on the adjacent fusion atoms C-10 and C-14. Certain other natural products [23] also have preferred orientations that place substituents within the ring system.
A substituent should not be oriented within a ring system when attached to a fusion atom that lacks any vertical or horizontal fusion bond. The substituent should be oriented outside the ring system, minimizing overlap as best as is possible. Sometimes, it might be possible to reorient the ring system so that the fusion bonds are vertical; the substituents should certainly be placed vertically if so.
It is not acceptable to orient two substituents within the same ring if the ring has fewer than eight atoms. One or both of the substituents should be oriented outside the ring system, minimizing overlap as best as is possible.
Substituents on interior fusion atoms have no option other than being drawn within the ring system. As above, such substituents should preferentially be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally, according to the direction that would minimize overlap with other atoms and bonds.
References
- Brecher, J. Graphical Representation of Stereochemical Configuration (IUPAC Recommendations 2006). Pure and Applied Chemistry 2009, 78 (10), 1897–1970. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200678101897. (Free Access)
- Brecher, J. Graphical Representation Standards for Chemical Structure Diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008). Pure and Applied Chemistry 2009, 80 (2), 277–410. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200880020277. (Free Access)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I have issues with some of the structures labelled "not acceptable." Yeah, some of them are not acceptable given overlap, but others are quite valid from first principles. Most particularly, in the section starting with "Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9," it seems extremely arbitrary to call the right structure "not acceptable."
$endgroup$
– Zhe
Mar 23 at 12:05
2
$begingroup$
@Zhe The way I interpret that section is that for particular classes of compounds (steroids for one) there's conventions on how you place those hydrogens, such that they will match across a diverse compound series (and with reader expectations). It's sort of like the conventions on how to orient certain molecules (e.g. for steroids the 5-member ring is in the upper right) - other ways of placing them (e.g. 5-member ring on the bottom or on the lower left) aren't technically incorrect, but are so against convention that you shouldn't do it.
$endgroup$
– R.M.
Mar 23 at 14:01
1
$begingroup$
That sounds 100% reasonable. Though I would strongly prefer the language of "unconventional" or "dispreferred" instead of "not acceptable."
$endgroup$
– Zhe
Mar 23 at 19:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, both inner and outer placements are possible with some nuances.
From Graphical representation of stereochemical configuration (IUPAC Recommendations 2006) [1, p. 1926]:
ST-1.3.2: Stereogenic centers at ring fusion atoms
Stereogenic centers at ring fusion atoms should be drawn with hashed wedged or solid wedged bonds to the exocyclic substituent at the fusion atom whenever possible. If necessary, an implicit hydrogen should be made explicit in order to provide an exocyclic substituent to bear the hashed wedged or solid wedged bond. When one of the fusion bonds is oriented vertically and the exocyclic substituent is graphically small (such as a hydrogen or a methyl group, or even such physically larger substituents as a phenyl group represented with a graphically small “Ph” group label), the exocyclic substituent is also
preferentially oriented vertically and opposite to the vertical fusion bond. This orientation is preferred even if it results in the substituent being placed within the ring system, and is particularly common in the depiction of steroids and other natural products.
From Graphical representation standards for chemical structure diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008) [2, p. 354–357]:
GR-4.2.2 Fusion atoms with one substituent drawn
Ring fusion atoms already have three bonds within the ring system. For external ring fusion atoms, the substituent should preferentially be positioned outside the ring system and oriented so that it bisects the angle between the adjacent bonds.
[...]
When two substituted fusion atoms are adjacent, placing both substituents outside the ring system will typically cause them to overlap. In those cases, it is better to draw one of the substituents within the ring system. A substituent drawn in this way should preferentially be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally, whichever direction would minimize overlap with other atoms and bonds.
If a substituted fusion atom is adjacent to an unsubstituted fusion atom, there typically is enough room to orient the substituent either inside or outside the ring system. That substituent should be oriented outside the ring system if all substituents can be oriented outwards, but should preferably be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally if any other substituent is placed within the ring system to avoid
conflict with an adjacent substituent.
Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9 atoms of steroids should be drawn within the ring system in this fashion even if there are no substituents on the adjacent fusion atoms C-10 and C-14. Certain other natural products [23] also have preferred orientations that place substituents within the ring system.
A substituent should not be oriented within a ring system when attached to a fusion atom that lacks any vertical or horizontal fusion bond. The substituent should be oriented outside the ring system, minimizing overlap as best as is possible. Sometimes, it might be possible to reorient the ring system so that the fusion bonds are vertical; the substituents should certainly be placed vertically if so.
It is not acceptable to orient two substituents within the same ring if the ring has fewer than eight atoms. One or both of the substituents should be oriented outside the ring system, minimizing overlap as best as is possible.
Substituents on interior fusion atoms have no option other than being drawn within the ring system. As above, such substituents should preferentially be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally, according to the direction that would minimize overlap with other atoms and bonds.
References
- Brecher, J. Graphical Representation of Stereochemical Configuration (IUPAC Recommendations 2006). Pure and Applied Chemistry 2009, 78 (10), 1897–1970. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200678101897. (Free Access)
- Brecher, J. Graphical Representation Standards for Chemical Structure Diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008). Pure and Applied Chemistry 2009, 80 (2), 277–410. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200880020277. (Free Access)
$endgroup$
Yes, both inner and outer placements are possible with some nuances.
From Graphical representation of stereochemical configuration (IUPAC Recommendations 2006) [1, p. 1926]:
ST-1.3.2: Stereogenic centers at ring fusion atoms
Stereogenic centers at ring fusion atoms should be drawn with hashed wedged or solid wedged bonds to the exocyclic substituent at the fusion atom whenever possible. If necessary, an implicit hydrogen should be made explicit in order to provide an exocyclic substituent to bear the hashed wedged or solid wedged bond. When one of the fusion bonds is oriented vertically and the exocyclic substituent is graphically small (such as a hydrogen or a methyl group, or even such physically larger substituents as a phenyl group represented with a graphically small “Ph” group label), the exocyclic substituent is also
preferentially oriented vertically and opposite to the vertical fusion bond. This orientation is preferred even if it results in the substituent being placed within the ring system, and is particularly common in the depiction of steroids and other natural products.
From Graphical representation standards for chemical structure diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008) [2, p. 354–357]:
GR-4.2.2 Fusion atoms with one substituent drawn
Ring fusion atoms already have three bonds within the ring system. For external ring fusion atoms, the substituent should preferentially be positioned outside the ring system and oriented so that it bisects the angle between the adjacent bonds.
[...]
When two substituted fusion atoms are adjacent, placing both substituents outside the ring system will typically cause them to overlap. In those cases, it is better to draw one of the substituents within the ring system. A substituent drawn in this way should preferentially be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally, whichever direction would minimize overlap with other atoms and bonds.
If a substituted fusion atom is adjacent to an unsubstituted fusion atom, there typically is enough room to orient the substituent either inside or outside the ring system. That substituent should be oriented outside the ring system if all substituents can be oriented outwards, but should preferably be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally if any other substituent is placed within the ring system to avoid
conflict with an adjacent substituent.
Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9 atoms of steroids should be drawn within the ring system in this fashion even if there are no substituents on the adjacent fusion atoms C-10 and C-14. Certain other natural products [23] also have preferred orientations that place substituents within the ring system.
A substituent should not be oriented within a ring system when attached to a fusion atom that lacks any vertical or horizontal fusion bond. The substituent should be oriented outside the ring system, minimizing overlap as best as is possible. Sometimes, it might be possible to reorient the ring system so that the fusion bonds are vertical; the substituents should certainly be placed vertically if so.
It is not acceptable to orient two substituents within the same ring if the ring has fewer than eight atoms. One or both of the substituents should be oriented outside the ring system, minimizing overlap as best as is possible.
Substituents on interior fusion atoms have no option other than being drawn within the ring system. As above, such substituents should preferentially be drawn exactly vertically or horizontally, according to the direction that would minimize overlap with other atoms and bonds.
References
- Brecher, J. Graphical Representation of Stereochemical Configuration (IUPAC Recommendations 2006). Pure and Applied Chemistry 2009, 78 (10), 1897–1970. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200678101897. (Free Access)
- Brecher, J. Graphical Representation Standards for Chemical Structure Diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008). Pure and Applied Chemistry 2009, 80 (2), 277–410. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac200880020277. (Free Access)
edited Mar 23 at 8:46
answered Mar 23 at 8:34
andseliskandselisk
19.7k665128
19.7k665128
$begingroup$
I have issues with some of the structures labelled "not acceptable." Yeah, some of them are not acceptable given overlap, but others are quite valid from first principles. Most particularly, in the section starting with "Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9," it seems extremely arbitrary to call the right structure "not acceptable."
$endgroup$
– Zhe
Mar 23 at 12:05
2
$begingroup$
@Zhe The way I interpret that section is that for particular classes of compounds (steroids for one) there's conventions on how you place those hydrogens, such that they will match across a diverse compound series (and with reader expectations). It's sort of like the conventions on how to orient certain molecules (e.g. for steroids the 5-member ring is in the upper right) - other ways of placing them (e.g. 5-member ring on the bottom or on the lower left) aren't technically incorrect, but are so against convention that you shouldn't do it.
$endgroup$
– R.M.
Mar 23 at 14:01
1
$begingroup$
That sounds 100% reasonable. Though I would strongly prefer the language of "unconventional" or "dispreferred" instead of "not acceptable."
$endgroup$
– Zhe
Mar 23 at 19:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have issues with some of the structures labelled "not acceptable." Yeah, some of them are not acceptable given overlap, but others are quite valid from first principles. Most particularly, in the section starting with "Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9," it seems extremely arbitrary to call the right structure "not acceptable."
$endgroup$
– Zhe
Mar 23 at 12:05
2
$begingroup$
@Zhe The way I interpret that section is that for particular classes of compounds (steroids for one) there's conventions on how you place those hydrogens, such that they will match across a diverse compound series (and with reader expectations). It's sort of like the conventions on how to orient certain molecules (e.g. for steroids the 5-member ring is in the upper right) - other ways of placing them (e.g. 5-member ring on the bottom or on the lower left) aren't technically incorrect, but are so against convention that you shouldn't do it.
$endgroup$
– R.M.
Mar 23 at 14:01
1
$begingroup$
That sounds 100% reasonable. Though I would strongly prefer the language of "unconventional" or "dispreferred" instead of "not acceptable."
$endgroup$
– Zhe
Mar 23 at 19:41
$begingroup$
I have issues with some of the structures labelled "not acceptable." Yeah, some of them are not acceptable given overlap, but others are quite valid from first principles. Most particularly, in the section starting with "Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9," it seems extremely arbitrary to call the right structure "not acceptable."
$endgroup$
– Zhe
Mar 23 at 12:05
$begingroup$
I have issues with some of the structures labelled "not acceptable." Yeah, some of them are not acceptable given overlap, but others are quite valid from first principles. Most particularly, in the section starting with "Small substituents on the C-8 and C-9," it seems extremely arbitrary to call the right structure "not acceptable."
$endgroup$
– Zhe
Mar 23 at 12:05
2
2
$begingroup$
@Zhe The way I interpret that section is that for particular classes of compounds (steroids for one) there's conventions on how you place those hydrogens, such that they will match across a diverse compound series (and with reader expectations). It's sort of like the conventions on how to orient certain molecules (e.g. for steroids the 5-member ring is in the upper right) - other ways of placing them (e.g. 5-member ring on the bottom or on the lower left) aren't technically incorrect, but are so against convention that you shouldn't do it.
$endgroup$
– R.M.
Mar 23 at 14:01
$begingroup$
@Zhe The way I interpret that section is that for particular classes of compounds (steroids for one) there's conventions on how you place those hydrogens, such that they will match across a diverse compound series (and with reader expectations). It's sort of like the conventions on how to orient certain molecules (e.g. for steroids the 5-member ring is in the upper right) - other ways of placing them (e.g. 5-member ring on the bottom or on the lower left) aren't technically incorrect, but are so against convention that you shouldn't do it.
$endgroup$
– R.M.
Mar 23 at 14:01
1
1
$begingroup$
That sounds 100% reasonable. Though I would strongly prefer the language of "unconventional" or "dispreferred" instead of "not acceptable."
$endgroup$
– Zhe
Mar 23 at 19:41
$begingroup$
That sounds 100% reasonable. Though I would strongly prefer the language of "unconventional" or "dispreferred" instead of "not acceptable."
$endgroup$
– Zhe
Mar 23 at 19:41
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Chemistry Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f111394%2fdoes-the-location-of-line-dash-wedge-notations-matter%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown








2
$begingroup$
Yes they could be placed inside, it doesn't matter.
$endgroup$
– Ivan Neretin
Mar 23 at 7:02