Abstract

The greater part of inorganic nomenclature was for many years handled with reasonable ease by means of the endings-ic,-ous,-ium,-ide,-ite, and-ate. When these did not suffice, help was sought mainly in prefixes of the type pyro-, hypo-, meta-, ortho-, per-, sub-, and in endings such as-oxylic,-yl,-osyl. There was, however, little consistency in the use of these adjuncts, and the resulting confusion was made worse when later studies of structure disclosed irrationalities in place of some of the supposed analogies. The Stock notation helped in many cases, and Werner’s nomenclature was invaluable for coordination compounds.

Keywords

Bismuth Antimony Thorium Ph3P Beryllium 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    See J. chem. Soc., 1940, 1404.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    IUPAG Comptes rendus of the llih Conference, 1953, pp. 98–119.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    IUPAG Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry, 1957, Butterworths, London, 1959.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    IUPAG Comptes rendus of the 23rd Conference, 1965, pp. 181–187.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    IUPAC Comptes rendus of the 15th Conference, 1949, pp. 127–132.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1968

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. S. Cahn

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations