The term "anagostic interactions" was coined in 1990 by Lippard and coworkers to distinguish sterically enforced M•••H-C contacts (M = Pd, Pt) in square-planar transition metal d 8 complexes from attractive, agostic interactions. [1a] This classification raised the fundamental question whether axial [2] (Scheme 1b) in which the transition metal plays the role of a hydrogen-bond acceptor (Scheme 1b). The latter bonding description is related to another bonding concept which describes these M•••H-C contacts in terms of (iii) pregostic or preagostic interactions [3] (Scheme 1c) which are considered as being "on the way to becoming agostic, or agostic of the weak type". [4] Scheme 1.In contrast to the first two types of interactions which require the presence of a fully occupied and axially oriented M(dz 2 ) orbital, preagostic interactions are considered to lack any "involvement of dz 2
orbitals in M•••H-C interactions" and rely mainly onThe first observation of unusual axial M•••H-C interaction in planar d 8 -ML4 complexes was made by S. Trofimenko, who pioneered the chemistry of transition metal pyrazolylborato complexes. [5,6] Trofimenko also realized in 1968, on the basis of NMR studies, that the shift of the pseudo axial methylene protons in the agostic species [Mo{Et2B(pz)2}( 3 -allyl)(CO)2] (1) (pz = pyrazolyl; allyl = H2CCHCH2) "is comparable in magnitude but different in direction from that observed in Ni[Et2B(pz)2]2" (2) (Scheme 2). [6,7] Scheme 2.Indeed, the protons of the methylene group which form a close M•••C contact of [2.954(2) Å] [8] in 1 resonate at -2.41 ppm at RT, [9] while the corresponding signal of the methylene protons of 2 occurs at 3.64 ppm (q, CH2, 2 JH-H 8 Hz ) and does not show any coalescence upon cooling to -90 °C despite large differences in the calculated chemical shifts [10a] of both methylene protons (Scheme 2). In contrast, the 1 H NMR signal of the agostic methylene protons in 1 splits into two features (-0.83 and -4.3) below -53 °C [9] in agreement with the computed NMR properties of our static DFT model (1.4 and -5.88 ppm) for the agostic Mo•••Hago-C and non-coordinating methylene proton, respectively (Scheme 2). Trofimenko concluded that the agostic proton in 1 displays a "hydridic" character and that the agostic proton of 1 is "intruding into a suitable empty metal orbital." [6a] He, therefore, suggested that the M•••H-C interactions in 1 is a bonding one causing an activation of the C-H bonds as evident by the "presence of CH stretch bands at remarkably low frequency" of 2704 cm -1 . [6b] This concept was later developed and refined by Brookhart and Green (BG); who coined the expression "agostic" for these kind of interactions. [11] According to the original criteria of BG, agostic interactions would be present in 1 but clearly absent in 2 since the latter compound displays a pronounced ( 1 H) down-field shift in the case of the Ni•••H-C coordinating methylene protons. This conclusion is also in accord with the structural study of 2 by [ ][a] Prof.