Re: naming of 4-trifuoromethyl-2,5-DMPEA
I think (as if my opinion really mattered on naming this compound) that 2C-TFM also fits better than 2C-CF3 because none of the other 2C's labels represent elemental names of the 4-position atoms present, but rather stand for the first letter or two of either a 4-position group or (in the case of 2C-B, 2C-C, etc) individual atoms present. We see 2C-B, 2C-C, 2C-E, and 2C-T...not 2C-Br, 2C-Cl, 2C-CH2CH3, and 2C-CH3S. Thus 2C-TFM "fits" better with the rest of the nomenclature than 2C-CF3 could.
Up till now, the names of DOx and 2C-x have never told us anything with regards to the chemistry of the compound it stands for. Take DOT for example...which stands for
desoxythio...not the more obvious
dimethoxythio...DOT is an analogue of DOM and DOET...
desoxy-methyl and
desoxy-ethyl...these are extensions of TMA-2...remove an oxygen and/or make a substitution for that remaining 4-position methyl group. Dexoxy-methyl (the primary analogue of TMA-2), desoxy-ethyl, and desoxy-thiomethyl.
What it boils down to is that this all would only make sense to one already familar with the chemistry and timeline behind Shulgin's inventions.
Perhaps Shulgin offered 2C-TFM to avoid confusion with other compounds....maybe the 2C-T family specifically. But then he did a number with the naming of 2C-D.
Giving 4-trifluoromethyl-2,5-DMPEA the label,
"2C-CF3", will not reverse the inevitable confusion that will always occur with the nomenclature of this facinating family of psychedelics....so its 2C-TFM.
Case closed!