• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | thegreenhand

  • Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

Novel dissociative 3-MeO-2-Oxo-PCPy

roi

roi

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,545
YaqtyVo.png


2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-2-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)cyclohexan-1-one

Has anyone tried this one yet?

Appeared at the same time as 2-Chloro-2-Oxo-PCPy.
 
Last edited:
Oh? 2' Ketonated tertiary amine ACHAs (arylcyclo etc), those are unusual I think..
 
I call this one MXPy (Methoxrolidine).
Click to expand...
Can't wait for MXP2 (3-MeO-2'-Oxo-PCP).
Click to expand...

Not a good idea, giving methoxphenidine a short name "MXP" was a very bad choice if MXE was already assigned to methoxetamine, but it happened. MXP2 is just weird and not sensible at all in my opinion, we might as well call mephedrone "cocaine 2", I guess.

I think the convention to call derivatives as PCP, PCPy, PCE, etc. with functional groups preceding it is neat enough. Also, the apostrophe in front of substituents on the aromatic ring makes more sense to me, arylcyclohexanamines are derivatives of cyclohexanamine, so 3-methoxy is like a substituent on the substituent... But then again I doubt people are going to start writing 3'-MeO-PCP.
 
I'm not even sure how you pronounce the apostrophe when you are talking about such nomenclature...

Agreed that overly analogous names are inappropriate, so maybe we need new trivial names. But seems premature if we don't even know if its any good or if there is proper material going around.
 
Seeing as people are saying that Methoxphenidine is MXP, I would like to that dangerous, harmful belief. MXP is not Methoxphenidine. MXx drugs are always arylcyclohexylamines. MXP is 3-MeO-2-OxO-PCP, a compound that has never been made. Anyone spreading the misinformation that MXP is the same thing as Methoxphenidine should be banned from this forum and any posts that say that should be deleted.
 
Last edited:
adder said:
Not a good idea, giving methoxphenidine a short name "MXP" was a very bad choice if MXE was already assigned to methoxetamine, but it happened. MXP2 is just weird and not sensible at all in my opinion, we might as well call mephedrone "cocaine 2", I guess.

I think the convention to call derivatives as PCP, PCPy, PCE, etc. with functional groups preceding it is neat enough. Also, the apostrophe in front of substituents on the aromatic ring makes more sense to me, arylcyclohexanamines are derivatives of cyclohexanamine, so 3-methoxy is like a substituent on the substituent... But then again I doubt people are going to start writing 3'-MeO-PCP.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more.
 
Nexus_Tripper said:
Seeing as people are saying that Methoxphenidine is MXP, I would like to that dangerous, harmful belief. MXP is not Methoxphenidine. MXx drugs are always arylcyclohexylamines. MXP is 3-MeO-2-OxO-PCP, a compound that has never been made. Anyone spreading the misinformation that MXP is the same thing as Methoxphenidine should be banned from this forum and any posts that say that should be deleted.
Click to expand...

While I completely see where you're coming from, and agree with adder, unfortunately the term/name MXP has already been coined, or assigned if you will, to methoxphenidine....so unless it was coined to a compound prior, like 3-MeO-2-OxO-PCP as you believe it should be, it's kinda somewhat stuck with methoxphenidine now.

I don't fully understand naming conventions or how we come up with half this shit, so if you don't mind could you please elaborate for me why MXP exclusively represents 3-MeO-2-OxO-PCP, when the compound doesn't even exist (so you say)? Legitimate question mate, I might actually learn something here.
 
Nomenclature of RCs is often misleading, inconsistent and confusing. Just accept it and move on, nothing you can do about it anyway.
 
I don't fully understand naming conventions or how we come up with half this shit, so if you don't mind could you please elaborate for me why MXP exclusively represents 3-MeO-2-OxO-PCP, when the compound doesn't even exist (so you say)? Legitimate question mate, I might actually learn something here.
Click to expand...

Names are simply assigned by people. There are really no laws governing them, well, unless we're talking about registered pharmaceuticals or chemicals in general, that's different then. But in this case it's more of an agreement among people using these names, usually names are derived from full IUPAC or non-IUPAC names in some way. As MXP hadn't been earlier assigned to 3'-MeO-2-oxo-PCP by anyone, it was assigned by someone (I don't even know whether it was the original vendor or someone else) to methoxphenidine. As it caught on and is in use now, it doesn't make sense to reassign it to 3'-MeO-2-oxo-PCP because it will only generate unnecessary confusion. Certainly someone could have assigned it to 3'-MeO'-2-oxo first, but unless the compound had been described in a scientific paper, even in theory, or at least had already existed on the RC market, chances are it wouldn't have been noticed anyway.
 
Well, pharmaceutical drug names are often made up and not derived from the IUPAC either.

In the case of RCs, sometimes authoritive sources such as the EMCDDA propose different names than used by RC vendors, for example APP-CHMINACA for "PX-3" and so on. MXP however was obviously already more correctly known as 2-MeO-Diphenidine/Methoxphenidine so they didn't invent a new name for it.
 
adder said:
Names are simply assigned by people. There are really no laws governing them, well, unless we're talking about registered pharmaceuticals or chemicals in general, that's different then. But in this case it's more of an agreement among people using these names, usually names are derived from full IUPAC or non-IUPAC names in some way. As MXP hadn't been earlier assigned to 3'-MeO-2-oxo-PCP by anyone, it was assigned by someone (I don't even know whether it was the original vendor or someone else) to methoxphenidine. As it caught on and is in use now, it doesn't make sense to reassign it to 3'-MeO-2-oxo-PCP because it will only generate unnecessary confusion. Certainly someone could have assigned it to 3'-MeO'-2-oxo first, but unless the compound had been described in a scientific paper, even in theory, or at least had already existed on the RC market, chances are it wouldn't have been noticed anyway.
Click to expand...

Adding to this, it's also often the prerogative of the inventor or first massproducer/vendor to name new compounds - That's how MXP came to have it's name. And that name will stick, no one can change that, be it God, Nexus-tripper or other higher powers......

About 3-MeO-2-Oxo-PCPy, I think this could be a really decent arylcyclohexylamine imo. I guess we will see though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top