|
Faltynek (J. Chem. Educ.
1995, 72, 20-24) discusses some very important points. We wish to draw
attention to the work by Sharma (J. Chem.
Educ. 1982, 59, 554-557), which addressed the problems cited by
Faltynek. It is unfortunate that the most recent work might
introduce the wrong impressions that were hopefully
eradicated by Sharma in 1982, and is constrained to
orthogonal axes.
We quote from the 1995 work (p 20, paragraph
2, line 13): "An improper rotation is a binary operation
involving consecutive application of the unitary
operations of rotation and reflection through a perpendicular
plane (Cnmsh
= shCnm =
Snm)." This does not take into
account explicitly that the operation does not mean that a
symmetry element exists. We quote from the 1982 work,
to make this clear (p 554, under the heading
Schöenflies Notation): "In the Schöenflies notation, at the very
outset, one needs to reckon with two different ways of
writing the symbols, namely the boldface (or italic
symbols) and the ordinary symbols. These symbols employing
the same letter and number mean two entirely
different ideas." Further on page 555 under the
subheading Spectroscopist's Alternating (Rotatory-Reflection)
Axes, we have "Point groups possessing just alternating
axes, symbolized as Sn, involve an
n-fold counterclockwise rotation of a motif to give an imaginary motif." The
word imaginary is crucial in that students should never
get any lingering thought that a rotation axis or a
mirror plane exists.
Finally, most discussions on symmetry are
based upon just the spectroscopist's viewpoint. No attention
is paid the well known Hermann–Mauguin concepts of
the crystallographic point of view. I was fortunate in that
I had exposure to both view points. I urge the readers
to study the excellent article by the late J. D. H.
Donnay (Acta Crystallogr. 1972,
A28, S110 and the references cited therein.).
|