-
MDMA &
Empathogenic
Drugs
Welcome Guest! -
MDMA Moderators: Esperighanto
Which name is more correct?
- Thread starter snafu
- Start date
3rd_I_blind
Bluelighter
Number 2 is not 'more correct', it basically gives useless double information.
Number 2 is comparable to saying 1-methanol or 1-ethanol
Number 2 is comparable to saying 1-methanol or 1-ethanol
adder
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,851
There is no such a thing like "1-methanol" or "1-ethanol" even in some informal chemistry speech so it's not a good comparison. This is totally incorrect as both molecules have no isomers, it's not like with propanol that in old nomenclature could be "1-propanol" or "2-propanol". These and "isopropanol" aren't really correct but they're still used, old and new nomenclatures are often mixed so "isopropyl" is sometimes used even though there's no compound named "isopropane" (and that's why "isopropanol" also actually comes from nothing).
Neither form given in the firm post is chemically correct as "amphetamine" isn't a correct name recognized by IUPAC. You can actually put a methyl group on a couple of carbon atoms, it doesn't have to be on the amine, e.g. you can have 3-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)butan-2-amine or 1-(7-methyl-1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)propan-2-amine (this is the full name for 5-methylMDA). This dispute is ridiculous and a discussion whether "methamphetamine" or "N-methylamphetamine" is correct would actually be the same...
Again, the question is "in what way?". According to IUPAC naming rules both names are equally incorrect. In informal chemical speech both names are equally passable.
Neither form given in the firm post is chemically correct as "amphetamine" isn't a correct name recognized by IUPAC. You can actually put a methyl group on a couple of carbon atoms, it doesn't have to be on the amine, e.g. you can have 3-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)butan-2-amine or 1-(7-methyl-1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)propan-2-amine (this is the full name for 5-methylMDA). This dispute is ridiculous and a discussion whether "methamphetamine" or "N-methylamphetamine" is correct would actually be the same...
Again, the question is "in what way?". According to IUPAC naming rules both names are equally incorrect. In informal chemical speech both names are equally passable.
Folley
Bluelighter
^So then what is the correct way to write the whole thing out?
lol, I could just write it like this
[size=+2]C[/size]11[size=+2]H[/size]15[size=+2]N[/size][size=+2]O[/size] 2
The formula is still another way to say it imo, oh but I forgot to mention this thread was directed towards those more into chemistry, obviously you won't hear many people referring to Mdma as any of the names above.
[size=+2]C[/size]11[size=+2]H[/size]15[size=+2]N[/size][size=+2]O[/size] 2
The formula is still another way to say it imo, oh but I forgot to mention this thread was directed towards those more into chemistry, obviously you won't hear many people referring to Mdma as any of the names above.
3rd_I_blind
Bluelighter
The fact that both alcohols I mentioned have no isomers does not make the naming incorrect. In both cases, the alcohol group is on the 1-position so it is not incorrect to name it 1-methanol or 1-ethanol; 2-ethanol would indeed be incorrect though. It might be pointless and nobody with a chemistry degree will take you serious after saying '1-methanol', but there is not a single thing incorrect about using the name.
However, as you already mentioned this whole 'dispute' is ridiculous and not really worh venturing into any much deeper.
But I am still of the opinion that - combining IUPAC conventions and common naming - N-methylamphetamine vs methamphetamine is the same as 1-ethanol vs ethanol, and thus methamphetamine should be preferred.
adder
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,851
The rule is you don't write any numbers if it is not required to distinguish one substance from the other. And this rule makes it incorrect to say "1-methanol" or "1-ethanol", I have never heard any chemist using such a nomenclature (to be honest no thing like this has ever popped into my mind either). But that's IUPAC-wise.
However, I have never heard some older chemists who were taught the old nomenclature using names like 1-methanol or 1-ethanol even speaking just in theory. So the homologous series is: methanol, ethanol, propanol and this one is the first to have isomers: propanol-1-ol = n-propanol and propan-2-ol (also called in old nomenclature isopropanol but it's incorrect as there is no isopropane like I wrote before; however, it's such an important chemical in chemical industry that the old name is still used and it's considered passable even by IUPAC although not really correct), and so on... Chemists sometimes abstain from using proper IUPAC names, the example is in this thread actually. Should it be considered a derivative of an amine or a derivative of 1,3-benzodioxole? It's a derivative of an amine of course IUPAC-wise but people tend to name substances being derivatives of aromatic compounds in different ways that are almost correct according to IUPAC but the very first choice is wrong, i.e. which group is of higher importance.
But it's all far from what this thread has been created for, I have a feeling.
N-methylamphetamine is indeed a combination of IUPAC naming rules ("N-methyl" part) with "common" naming ("amphetamine" part). However, "methamphetamine" is a name that has totally nothing to do with IUPAC naming rules as in no case "methyl" is shortened to "meth-" and like I wrote earlier "amphetamine" is not an accepted name for 1-phenylpropan-2-amine at all (the situation is different with phenethylamine as alkaloids and "core" compounds widely used names for hormones or neurotransmitters are acceptable somehow).
I'm by no means willing to convince someone to call MDMA "1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-N-methylpropan-2-amine" or call methamphetamine "N-methyl-1-phenylpropan-2-amine". But my opinion on naming rules for all compounds in chemistry "environment" is simple - there should be some uniform system and there is. It's not perfect and no wonder as it's hard to write the rules for all possible situations. IUPAC isn't perfect but at least it cleans the chaos there used to be.
You can use all the mentioned names, i.e. methylenedioxymethamphetamine, methylenedioxy-N-methylmethamphetamine, and MDMA, and you will be understood both in places like here and in a company of chemists as this compound has been used for such a long time there is no way some chemist doesn't know what "amphetamine" or "MDMA" is, especially if he/she is actually a neurochemist. And they themselves won't waste time saying "1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-N-methylpropan-2-amine", no, definitely not, they'll just say "MDMA" or "methylenedioxy..." if it's going to concern some derivatives. "1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-N-methylpropan-2-amine" is just a full proper IUPAC name that may be used in some books on some branch of neuroscience and it'd still be used only to point out the IUPAC name.
Just like in "toluene" became accepted (and now is actually proper IUPAC names, nobody says "methylbenzene"), in the same way "amphetamine" and names of its derivatives will be used in chemistry literature concerning neurochemistry or some other neuroscience. I guess it's just a matter of time that the name will be accepted as the proper name because there are too many compounds in use being derivatives of this compound (like there'll be no "2-(methylamino)-1-(4-methylphenyl)propan-1-one" but "mephedrone" instead etc.).
The discussion on IUPAC naming rules is still open and I guess it'll always be because there are so many compounds that doesn't really follow any rule, e.g. you have to know by heart the names of nitrous acid and nitric acid and the situation complicates when salts of these are to be named (but it's actually in English, in my language HNO2 is "kwas azotowy (III)" and HNO3 is "kwas azotowy (V)", valence of the atom of nitrogen is simply given, the same goes for salts but some more complex salts and ions are still to be known by heart, older names are often shorter and when you work, time is money
).
However, I have never heard some older chemists who were taught the old nomenclature using names like 1-methanol or 1-ethanol even speaking just in theory. So the homologous series is: methanol, ethanol, propanol and this one is the first to have isomers: propanol-1-ol = n-propanol and propan-2-ol (also called in old nomenclature isopropanol but it's incorrect as there is no isopropane like I wrote before; however, it's such an important chemical in chemical industry that the old name is still used and it's considered passable even by IUPAC although not really correct), and so on... Chemists sometimes abstain from using proper IUPAC names, the example is in this thread actually. Should it be considered a derivative of an amine or a derivative of 1,3-benzodioxole? It's a derivative of an amine of course IUPAC-wise but people tend to name substances being derivatives of aromatic compounds in different ways that are almost correct according to IUPAC but the very first choice is wrong, i.e. which group is of higher importance.
But it's all far from what this thread has been created for, I have a feeling.
3rd_I_blind said:
N-methylamphetamine is indeed a combination of IUPAC naming rules ("N-methyl" part) with "common" naming ("amphetamine" part). However, "methamphetamine" is a name that has totally nothing to do with IUPAC naming rules as in no case "methyl" is shortened to "meth-" and like I wrote earlier "amphetamine" is not an accepted name for 1-phenylpropan-2-amine at all (the situation is different with phenethylamine as alkaloids and "core" compounds widely used names for hormones or neurotransmitters are acceptable somehow).
I'm by no means willing to convince someone to call MDMA "1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-N-methylpropan-2-amine" or call methamphetamine "N-methyl-1-phenylpropan-2-amine". But my opinion on naming rules for all compounds in chemistry "environment" is simple - there should be some uniform system and there is. It's not perfect and no wonder as it's hard to write the rules for all possible situations. IUPAC isn't perfect but at least it cleans the chaos there used to be.
Folley said:
You can use all the mentioned names, i.e. methylenedioxymethamphetamine, methylenedioxy-N-methylmethamphetamine, and MDMA, and you will be understood both in places like here and in a company of chemists as this compound has been used for such a long time there is no way some chemist doesn't know what "amphetamine" or "MDMA" is, especially if he/she is actually a neurochemist. And they themselves won't waste time saying "1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-N-methylpropan-2-amine", no, definitely not, they'll just say "MDMA" or "methylenedioxy..." if it's going to concern some derivatives. "1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-N-methylpropan-2-amine" is just a full proper IUPAC name that may be used in some books on some branch of neuroscience and it'd still be used only to point out the IUPAC name.
Just like in "toluene" became accepted (and now is actually proper IUPAC names, nobody says "methylbenzene"), in the same way "amphetamine" and names of its derivatives will be used in chemistry literature concerning neurochemistry or some other neuroscience. I guess it's just a matter of time that the name will be accepted as the proper name because there are too many compounds in use being derivatives of this compound (like there'll be no "2-(methylamino)-1-(4-methylphenyl)propan-1-one" but "mephedrone" instead etc.).
The discussion on IUPAC naming rules is still open and I guess it'll always be because there are so many compounds that doesn't really follow any rule, e.g. you have to know by heart the names of nitrous acid and nitric acid and the situation complicates when salts of these are to be named (but it's actually in English, in my language HNO2 is "kwas azotowy (III)" and HNO3 is "kwas azotowy (V)", valence of the atom of nitrogen is simply given, the same goes for salts but some more complex salts and ions are still to be known by heart, older names are often shorter and when you work, time is money
).
Dresden
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 3,212
Just tell your friends you want some 1-(1,3-benzodioxole-5-yl)-2-methylaminopropane! 
MDA: 2-amino-1-(1,3-benzodioxole-5-yl)-propane
MDE: 1-(1,3-benzodioxle-5-yl)-2-ethylaminopropane
AMP: 2-amino-1-phenylpropane
METH: 2-methylamino-1-phenylpropane
ETH: 2-ethylamino-1-phenylpropane
MDA: 2-amino-1-(1,3-benzodioxole-5-yl)-propane
MDE: 1-(1,3-benzodioxle-5-yl)-2-ethylaminopropane
AMP: 2-amino-1-phenylpropane
METH: 2-methylamino-1-phenylpropane
ETH: 2-ethylamino-1-phenylpropane
Last edited:
socalthizzn
Bluelighter
I honestly cant imagine even the term mdma used outside of mdma forums.
99.9% of users use slang terms.
99.9% of users use slang terms.
jamaica0535
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,051
(RS)-1-(benzo[d][1,3]dioxol-5-yl)-N-methylpropan-2-amine
That's another name for it.
The first one is just an abbreviated version of the first, people will still know what your talking about but in the end either of yours are interchangeable. The one I gave is less of a common description.
That's another name for it.
The first one is just an abbreviated version of the first, people will still know what your talking about but in the end either of yours are interchangeable. The one I gave is less of a common description.