Naming novel compounds and discussion threads about them.

[Transform]

I've split this thread away from its parent threads as it was off-topic. It pertains to the naming of new threads and whether we should settle for using incorrect names given by vendors, or try to get people to use more correct names for new substances. The post below this one is in response to the mods changing the title of a thread to reflect the correct name instead of a vendor one, despite having done the opposite in other threads.

 

[roi]

If we're overly correct today please add the deschloro back to http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/776753-The-Big-amp-Dandy-2-Fluoroketamine-Thread and remove "O-PCE" from http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/767905-The-Big-amp-Dandy-O-PCE-2-Oxo-PCE-Thread.

Thanks!

 

[Solipsis]

I was kind of kidding before, actually... I'd consider the deschloro change as a technicality but as someone already mentioned for me in that thread, without it its just easier as a trivial name, it's more realistic/easy to adapt to what we anticipate the trivial name to become anyway, or the name under which its already being sold. Unless its actually incorrect. And since - as you said yourself - its pretty much impossible to confuse with another compound there is no conflict if you leave it out. If anything including it would point out the similarity with deschloroketamine on a chemical level, but I don't even know that the effects are that similar. Also names don't necessarily have the function to point out similarities.

I love being overly correct some of the days, but IMO it must be met with being realistic about what is actually significant. I may not be a professional chemist but just as implicit hydrogens or stereochemistry are not drawn unless there is actually a point to make, some significant detail to show... IMO compound names [[ that are expected to be picked up somehow as trivial names ]] should not contain redundant details. We leave out what is understood, we don't use IUPAC names all the time either.
No mistake can be made, so it's now implied. Things would be different if every drug user was a chemist, but we have to reconcile our different backgrounds. No errors for the chemists, and no unnecessarily long names for people who easily get confused by all the chem names, or are just dyslexic .

The O-PCE seems fine, no idea what would be incorrect about that. Just an abbreviation.

If enough people start calling it eticyclidone by the way, then I wouldn't dream of standing in the way of 'democracy'... but at this point I don't see why we have to overcomplicate it and do that. PCP is not called phencyclidine explicitly by many drug users (in their online discussion anyway) as far as I know.. I'd expect that from someone talking about it as a foreign object of research or discussion like a politician. In the case of eticyclidone the name may have come out of fondness for the chemical + contentness with the consistency with nomenclature conventions for these chems (I think). I really appreciate that if its true, but like with the trypts such as psilacetin, those names while being main trivial names are not the main abbreviations.
At least that doesn't seem how it's done 'traditionally' in xihkal and PD.

Anyway soon it's not my call anymore... if these things are important, let us all know why it should be different and correct, if we are being overly correct - clearly not something that yields objective / self evident answers.

[mod note - at some point these posts perhaps ought to be hidden since its irrelevant to BOHB - or move it if you insist on a public argument ]

 

[roi]

The point is that O-PCE is a vendor invented name and "O" doesn't exactly refer to 2'-keto! It's just as misleading as βH-2C-B. Yet for one you change it, but not the other. Which makes no sense.

 

[Bagseed]

^this makes sense from a chemist's / chemistry aficionado point of view, but in my opinion it is pretty non-relevant to most endusers... the vast majority has no idea what a ketone is or the meaning of 2 vs 2'. I agree that naming should be logical and not misleading, but somebody who is into the theory will check out the structure of a drug anyway. and for the other's, they probably couldn't care less if it's called O-PCE or 2'-Oxo-PCE.

the only really consistent way to do proper nomenclature is IUPAC rules anyway, but probably all agree that 2-ethylamino-2-phenyl-cyclohexanone is a mouthfull...

 

[Solipsis]

Say I remove it from the TT, trying to be correct and encouraging people to use either eticyclidone or 2'-Oxo-PCE, I wonder what happens, especially for the chem-noobs... confusion about different names I guess, just making it hard to find info on what they buy or see available. Obscuring for what goal? (See bagseed's post)

βH-2C-B is misleading to the point of being incorrect I agree, because for hydroxy pretty much always OH is used which is not overly long or complicating for alphabet soup chem names. Although I have yet to see a hydride drug, also mainly because hydride is an ionic compound with little meaning in organic chem.
The covalent hydride of a carbon compound is just a hydrocarbon. beta hydride 2C-B is just 2C-B. Bit ridiculous, no? But nevertheless hydroxy just should be OH. Also because nothing is lost just using that.

For O-PCE the O is not incorrect. I agree it does not detail that its 2-keto, but that only makes it ambiguous. I guess the shame would be if e.g. 3'-Oxo-PCE became available and we would have to start detailing that it's 2-O-PCE and 3-O-PCE.
But in all fairness, if you focus on eticyclidone as a name now, you'd have a similar problem. In eticyclidone the ketone position is not specified either. But alright you have not really been advocating that name right now..
I guess you just want O-PCE removed (see start of this post).
And '2-Oxo-PCE is already in the TT to keep clear where that O is. It's wise to prepare for an unknown future with unknown novel chems, that's pretty much the only reason I can think of to try and avoid the ambiguity before it becomes a problem.

You see the predicament though? Hopefully it makes more sense now.

 

[roi]

βH for beta-hydroxy makes much more sense than O for 2'-keto.

I'm not saying it is correct, but what I'm saying is it makes no sense to change it here but not there.

For O-PCE the O is not incorrect.

It's about as correct as O-MDMA being Methylone.

In no way O means ketone. It is a vendor invented name and nothing else. Just like βH-2C-B.

 

[Bagseed]

In eticyclidone the ketone position is not specified either. But alright you have not really been advocating that name right now..
I guess you just want O-PCE removed (see start of this post).

well to be fair, the only place to put a ketone is the cyclohexyl ring. if you put an oxygen on the ethylamino group you'd either have an amide or an aldehyde. so, eticyclidone is not ambiguous to where the keto should be (if you're familiar with arylcyclohexylamine structure).

but still, not relevant for most people.

 

[Incunabula]

CE.

the only really consistent way to do proper nomenclature is IUPAC rules anyway, but probably all agree that 2-ethylamino-2-phenyl-cyclohexanone is a mouthfull...

this!

Ketamine got it's name, because of the 2-ketone group and the amine group, ketone+amine. My point is that ketamine is a trivial name itself, and thus not saying anything real about it's structure, but the name is still being inspired by it though, obviously. The same goes for '2-Oxo-PCE, for a chemist it could be a whole slew of compounds. 2-ethylamino-2-phenyl-cyclohexanone is the only true unambiguous name for this compound - the rest is trivial names.

The "des"-something "nomenclature" isn't systematic or correct, it gives as much way to the creation of trivial names as any other way of designating compounds. And while it might make sense sometimes, it isn't always the most practical. An example would be deschloroketamine, which sounds like it is closer to MXE and '2-Oxo-PCE in efffects, so calling it '2-Oxo-PCM or O-PCM, would probably be good HR in this case.

Also, the "des" suffixing makes for really long names, that in some cases, when abbreviated, will make no sense for those who don't know what it stands for.

At least: PCP -> 3-MeO-PCP -> 3-MeO-PCE -> PCE -> O-PCE -> O-PCM, makes some sense. Just like 2C-C -> 2C-B -> 2C-I, ETC.

Compare to.....

KETAMINE -> NENK -> DCK -> 2-MEO-K -> 2FDCK -> DCEK

Last one really shold be DCNENK, lol :D

 

[Transform]

βH for beta-hydroxy makes much more sense than O for 2'-keto.

I disagree completely, because βH already has an existing meaning. "O" is so ambiguous that this is not an issue.

So although O does not mean ketone, it also does not mean anything else.

Of course we don't need to have IUPAC names for everything, but if we have the opportunity to make a small change and greatly increase the correctness of the name, why not do so at this early stage?

Including the deschloro in 2-FK is less important because the 2 position can only accommodate a single substituent. This is in contrast to NENK.

Also I have removed the name "O-PCE" from the eticyclidone thread - as a huge drug discussion community we have a pretty powerful influence on the common lexicon and it would be foolish to waste that. I think that's even more evident for BOHB, where we are discussing it before it's really hit the market at all.

 

[Solipsis]

If it's about rejecting the choice for the "oxo" in 2'-Oxo-PCE (and consequently the O-PCE abbreviation) because it is not consistent with the keto in bk-MDMA, IUPAC actually abandoned "keto" as prefix for ketones so it's outdated I guess. Does that answer your issue?

 

[Incunabula]

Maybe we should have a centralized thread for discussing names of new compounds, so not to clutter threads?

Including the deschloro in 2-FK is less important because the 2 position can only accommodate a single substituent. This is in contrast to NENK.

Good point But you got to admit that DCNENK for O-PCE would be rather silly, no?. That's what it really should be called using the "nor" and "des" way of naming compounds. Since it is structurally a cross between NENK and DCK. It quickly becomes very, very silly naming analogs of analogs of analogs like that.

I guess the problem is, that there really never has been any real tradition for how to name arylcyclohexylamines (contrary to phenethylamines, amphetamines and tryptamines)

I think that 2-Phenyl-2-(methylamino)cyclohexanone is the worst example of this, so far I've seen it called: DCK, Deschloroketamine, d-ketamine, O-PCM, 2-OXO-PCM, DXE.

 

[Solipsis]

Yeah smart not to move cluttering from one thread to another.. guess it's a general topic now, obviously hard and not necessary to focus this kind of issue on one or few chems..

Good point incunabula, I guess that you can depart from ketamine with it, minus the chloro - or go the more IUPAC way with like 2-Oxo-PCM (shortened to O-PCM)... The other ones I would just dismiss as faulty, d-ketamine would primarily be dextroketamine which we mostly know as the S-isomer. DXE is very confusing apart from that I like pronouncing it as dixie (so hopefully that will someday be a correct term for some chem), its not a DXM analogue nor directly related to MXE, the X is still part of abbreviating the methoxy, and even if the DX is desmethoxy, it is unclear about the amine substitution cause MXE / methoxetamine is not 2-MeO-deschloroketamine. MXE has rendered the suffix / root "etamine" ambiguous compared to when we just mainly had ketamine and little else.

So while perhaps there is not really as much of a tradition, or conventions conflict once we encounter analogues that are like a cross-over in the middle of compounds named via different conventions - we don't know which one to choose. We'd have to argue which one is most elegant, simple, logical - as one of them may be the more obviously convoluted one - just like DCNENK is convoluted.
But it could be fair, that if in an early stage we know an analogue to be very closely related in effect to one of its hybrid parents much more than the other - to give that one the favor in a naming conflict.

Ehh does this now belong in the NSP forum? I'm afraid to say it does, not sure if it deserves to attract attention from PD-dwelling drugnerds first.

 

[Solipsis]

Re@Listener in ephenidine thread:

I'm not opposed to IUPAC names in B&D titles since it couldn't hurt, but I think it's near pointless because the people educated/smart enough too decypher and distinguish IUPAC names will also be smart enough to understand the OP that should hold all relevant information. I think IUPACs have been put in the OP pretty structurally or if not - we should focus heavily on that. Moving details over to the thread titles mostly makes things more messy. A very smart move / way to use IUPAC is to use that as searchwords so that you KNOW that you arrive at the right compound - but that also works with IUPAC in the OP, not TT (unless you unwisely search in TT-only). So no offense but that logic seems to make it a bit pointless.