Correspondence on “Taxonomy of Chemical Bondings: Opportunities and Challenges”

Abstract

Abstract In a recent Scientific Perspective, Pizzi et al. recommend that σ‐ and π‐hole bonds should be named after the Periodic‐Table group to which the electrophile belongs or, if greater specificity is required, after the element type of the electrophile. This could easily give rise to dozens of noncovalent bond types. The stated benefits of this naming scheme are of debatable value. In addition, it conceals the strong underlying similarity of the differently named interactions. The obvious alternative is to use the terms that reflect the physical natures of these interactions: σ‐hole bond, π‐hole bond and, possibly, p‐hole bond. The concerns that Pizzi et al. have about these terms are shown here to be unjustified, largely because they are based on irrelevant hypothetical interactions. The benefits of using σ‐, π‐ and p‐hole bonds instead of dozens of individual names are simplicity, greater clarity and a lack of ambiguity.