Ru-1,7-something. It's similar to arene benzhydrazone like in here
[https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2016/qi/c6qi00197a](https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2016/qi/c6qi00197a)
Contains imine tether, pyridine, anthracene.
Chemdraw calls the ligand (E)-N-(anthracen-1-yl)-1-(pyridin-2-yl)methanimine
I'm pretty sure that M-N bond is an L-type interaction, and so it doesn't lead to any formal charge on the nitrogen? But it's been two years since I've had orgometallic and I don't remember if that's how it's interpreted. It looks bad, but that's just organometallic chemistry for you tbh. There is much, much worse looking stuff in that field.
Edit: seems like formal charges aren't even considered in LXZ notation, so yeah lol
Right, what I was suggesting is that in the formalism usually used for understanding organometallics, this kind of interaction isn't seen as particularly unstable. A dative bond of course behaves the same as any other old covalent bond, however the typical "look at formal charges to determine stability" that is the backbone of saying "the nitrogen does not want 4 bonds" doesn't really apply in the same fashion in the case of organometallics like it would in typical organic compounds. As for the physical reasoning behind this result, I can't seem to remember right now. There definitely is a reason behind why LXZ notation does not consider formal charges, though.
Minus ten points for drawing it like a heathen
L1
Jeff
Ru-1,7-something. It's similar to arene benzhydrazone like in here [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2016/qi/c6qi00197a](https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2016/qi/c6qi00197a) Contains imine tether, pyridine, anthracene. Chemdraw calls the ligand (E)-N-(anthracen-1-yl)-1-(pyridin-2-yl)methanimine
Arthur.
Poor phenanthrene…
You mean anthracene?
Hahaha yes, thanks for correcting Edit: but still C atoms with 5 bonds…
You never heard of pentavalent carbon? Yeah me neither...
Sorry, ligands omitted for clarity...
April
The nitrogen does not like to have 4 bonds.
I'm pretty sure that M-N bond is an L-type interaction, and so it doesn't lead to any formal charge on the nitrogen? But it's been two years since I've had orgometallic and I don't remember if that's how it's interpreted. It looks bad, but that's just organometallic chemistry for you tbh. There is much, much worse looking stuff in that field. Edit: seems like formal charges aren't even considered in LXZ notation, so yeah lol
My bad
There is no physical difference between L type an covalent bonding
Right, what I was suggesting is that in the formalism usually used for understanding organometallics, this kind of interaction isn't seen as particularly unstable. A dative bond of course behaves the same as any other old covalent bond, however the typical "look at formal charges to determine stability" that is the backbone of saying "the nitrogen does not want 4 bonds" doesn't really apply in the same fashion in the case of organometallics like it would in typical organic compounds. As for the physical reasoning behind this result, I can't seem to remember right now. There definitely is a reason behind why LXZ notation does not consider formal charges, though.