Sometimes the IUPAC name is too verbose despite the structure's high symmetry. If we could use only the first locant of the ("topologically symmetrically") equivalent set of locants, and designate all of them by some symbol (e.g. xallsym, which is too long, and Greek letter sigma has some meanings already, so I will use Greek letter stigma), then we could have
1,3,5-trinitrohexahydro-s-triazine vs
1ς-trinitrohexahydro-s-triazine or
Nς-trinitrohexahydro-s-triazine
naphthalene-1,4,5,8-tetrol vs
naphthalene-1ς-tetrol
naphthalene-1,2,4,5,8-pentol vs
naphthalene-1ς,2-pentol
naphthalene-1,2,3,6,7-pentol vs
naphthalene-1,2ς-pentol
🔗
1,5(1,2,3),2,4,6,8,9(1,4),3,7(1,2)-nonabenzenabicyclo[3.3.1]nonaphane vs
1ς(1,2,3),2ς(1,4),3ς(1,2)-nonabenzenabicyclo[3.3.1]nonaphane
1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachlorobenzene or
hexachlorobenzene vs
1ς-hexachlorobenzene (the name is not convenient in this case)
1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachlorocyclohexane vs
1ς-hexachlorocyclohexane
1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6-dodecachlorocyclohexane or
perchlorocyclohexane vs
1ς,ς-dodecachlorocyclohexane
(not convenient in this case, but mentioned the special feature, listing two identical sets. Imagine 1ς means 1,2,3,4,5,6; 1ς,ς would mean 1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6)
Wrong usage can lead to contadictions/confusion, e.g. 1ς-trichlorobenzene would be illegal, because benzene carbon 1 is equivalent with all other carbons, total 6. But it is distantly similar problem like for with name like 1,2,3-hexachlorobenzene.
Is anyone aware of such feature in any chemical nomenclature?