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

  • N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | someguyontheinternet

Proper Chemical Name for DOC

S

sub-di

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 9, 2003
Messages
196
I know the Pihkal entry states: 2,5-DIMETHOXY-4-CHLOROAMPHETAMINE

Now, I am pretty ignorant about chemical names in general (the subject interests me and I plan on studying it more, but bare with me here.)

I've seen this same compound named in the following fashion, and I'm wondering if it's simply a different way of naming the same compound, an incorrect chemical name, or a different compound alltogether miss-named as DOC:

1-(2,5-DIMETHOXY-4-CHLOROPHENYL)-2-AMINOPROPANE HYDROCHLORIDE

Every other compound listed where I found this strange name had chemical names consistent with that of Pihkal, but when I came across DOC and DOI, they had this instead. DOI is listed as:

1-(2,5-DIMETHOXY-4-IODOPHENYL)-2-AMINOPROPANE HYDROCHLORIDE

The 2 names are obviously consistent with each other, just not with PiHkal.
Any chemistry nuts care to crack this one?
 
The former version is laymens and the latter IUPAC. They are both correct. There are plenty of guides online explaining the standardized naming of compounds via IUPAC.
 
nuke said:
The former version is laymens and the latter IUPAC. They are both correct. There are plenty of guides online explaining the standardized naming of compounds via IUPAC.
Click to expand...

Cool, that explains it then. Ha! Laymen's...that makes me feel even more stupid, I have much to learn indeed.
 
MyExcuse said:
the main reason the latter ones are used is because they do not contain the word Amphetamine in them...
Click to expand...

I can't imagine why, it doesn't serve any practical purpose (the name as you can see is longer) and every other compound listed on the same page I found these contains terms that may arowse scrutiny such as phenethylamine and tryptamine.
 
No need to feel stupid, Shulgin uses it too and we were all naive once, it's just a simple and easy way to name phenalkylamines that's been in use for a while... IUPAC was invented so that compounds could be named uniquely and to allow for as little confusion as possible.
 
Yes, I can see why in the same list I'm refering to they would use the IUPAC for DOC and DOI so as to decrease the likelyhood of they being confused with say, 2C-I and 2C-C (within the list as well); which in laymen terminology look almost identical.
 
Really? I would think the IUPAC names for DOI/2C-I would be easier to confuse than 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine / 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodophenethylamine...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top