Talk:New fuchsine
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Structure incorrect?
[edit]At least according to Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, the structure shown here is for fuchsine. This source indicates that new fuchsine has N-methyl groups and regular fuchsine has NH2 groups. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Structure shown in the article is wrong. All depictions of the structure on different goverment hosted websites show different structures. also the chemical formula doesnt count that much carbon atoms. The N-methyl-groups are non existent in New fuchsine. I almost used the picture for a new new fuchsine article in german wikipedia! why the heck do you think there are N-methyl-groups? --Mayonnaisium (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2019 (EST)
- Changed the structural image to a correct one. For further information see Dye standards, Part II.8: New Fuchsin (CI 42520) In: Histochemical Journal. Nr. 24, 1992, S. 240–242. --Mayonnaisium (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Mayonnaisium: I'm not sure which structure is correct, but now the article is inconsistent. The formula in the first sentence and the preparation described in the second paragraph now contradict the structure and data in the infobox. If you're confident that the structure you've added is correct, then the text should be adjusted accordingly (either by changing or by removing inconsistent content).
Also, the structure you've added is the same as the structure given at the article fuchsine, so there are still some issues to resolve in that regard.Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC) (edit:struck out an incorrect statement) - @Smokefoot: Maybe you can weigh in too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Edgar181:Thank you Ed and Mayonnaisium (you might reflect on tone on your message). It looks like the structure was indeed incorrect. It was taken from Ullmann's encyclopedia, which even gives a couple of prep that would afford the N-Me deriv. "New fuchsin [3248-91-7] (64) (C.I. Basic Violet 2, C.I. 42520) is obtained by condensing N-methyl-o-toluidine with formaldehyde..." But I cannot find my structure in CAS or Xray databases. New fuchsine is a relatively obscure compound, based on the citation rate. Good progress overall.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Chemical Abstracts attaches the CAS Number 3248-91-7 to the structure with no N-methyl groups (File:Neofuchsin.svg) and includes "New fuchsin" and "New fuchsine" as synonyms. Since 3248-91-7 cannot be made from N-methyl-o-toluidine (unless there is loss of the N-methyl groups during the course of the reaction by some method I can't fathom), I think Ullmann might be wrong. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Edgar181:Thank you Ed and Mayonnaisium (you might reflect on tone on your message). It looks like the structure was indeed incorrect. It was taken from Ullmann's encyclopedia, which even gives a couple of prep that would afford the N-Me deriv. "New fuchsin [3248-91-7] (64) (C.I. Basic Violet 2, C.I. 42520) is obtained by condensing N-methyl-o-toluidine with formaldehyde..." But I cannot find my structure in CAS or Xray databases. New fuchsine is a relatively obscure compound, based on the citation rate. Good progress overall.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Mayonnaisium: I'm not sure which structure is correct, but now the article is inconsistent. The formula in the first sentence and the preparation described in the second paragraph now contradict the structure and data in the infobox. If you're confident that the structure you've added is correct, then the text should be adjusted accordingly (either by changing or by removing inconsistent content).
- Changed the structural image to a correct one. For further information see Dye standards, Part II.8: New Fuchsin (CI 42520) In: Histochemical Journal. Nr. 24, 1992, S. 240–242. --Mayonnaisium (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The name comes from the 'old' dye which is named for the color that is, in turned, named after the plant, which is named after the German botanist Leonhardt Fuchs. This means that the name of this substance is in only related to the German word for "fox" insofar as Leonhardt's last name is, and it certainly wasn't named based on any connection to the animal. I would suggest that this be changed to reflect the actual origin of the name of the substance, and not just a general, broader, and unrelated correlation with the German language as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossark (talk • contribs) 03:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I think we should leave it out unless we have any citations to verify it. You could also say it is named based on the plant genus Fuchsia . --Mayonnaisium (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)