2C-D nomenclature question

[Vanadium]

hey

a simple question,

why Shulgin named 2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylphenethylamine 2C-D, not 2C-M ??

thanks

 

[any major dude]

seems like i've read this somewhere in pihkal, but couldn't find it under 2c-d or DOM. I'll edit my post with the link if i find it. There is another thread on bluelight discussing it here though

 

[Twigs]

In this "Ask Shulgin" question he actually calls it 2c-m.

...there are only two (not three) carbons in the molecule. Thus, there appeared 2C-M, 2C-B, 2C-I, 2C-E, 2C-T and on and on.

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/shulgin/adsarchive/2cb.htm

 

[any major dude]

lol

 

[Astatine]

In PHKAL recipe #14, BOD, Sasha says

As mentioned above, the “D” in “OD” follows from its ring orientation pattern being the same as that of 2C-D (and this, originally from the mimicking of the pattern of DOM). All of these D- compounds have the 2,5-dimethoxy-4-methyl ring-substitution pattern

 

[any major dude]

ah, that's what i was looking for. Who'd have thought to look in BOD. Gotta love Shulgin. Also, there is a recurring theme in his writings about the hopelessness inherently involved in nomenclature. He's got entire chapters devoted to it at points.

 

[pharmakos]

i always thought it was so that the first part of the alphabet would be mostly filled out. shulgin did weird things like that sometimes. there's a theoretical 2C-A, and then there's -B, -C, -D, -E, -F, -G, -H, and -I.

also, maybe he was saving 2C-M for the 4-morpholine or something?