Herein we present the first solid‐state structures of tetraiododiborane(4) (B\(_2\)I\(_4\)), which was long believed to exist in all phases as discrete molecules with planar, tricoordinate boron atoms, like the lighter tetrahalodiboranes(4) B\(_2\)F\(_4\), B\(_2\)Cl\(_4\), and B\(_2\)Br\(_4\). Single‐crystal X‐ray diffraction, solid‐state NMR, and IR measurements indicate that B\(_2\)I\(_4\) in fact exists as two different polymeric forms in the solid state, both of which feature boron atoms in tetrahedral environments. DFT calculations are used to simulate the IR spectra of the solution and solid‐state structures, and these are compared with the experimental spectra.

The steric and electronic properties of aryl substituents in monoaryl borohydrides (Li[ArBH\(_3\)]) and dihydroboranes were systematically varied and their reactions with [Ru(PCy\(_3\))\(_2\)HCl(H\(_2\))] (Cy: cyclohexyl) were studied, resulting in bis(σ)‐borane or terminal borylene complexes of ruthenium. These variations allowed for the investigation of the factors involved in the activation of dihydroboranes in the synthesis of terminal borylene complexes. The complexes were studied by multinuclear NMR spectroscopy, mass spectrometry, X‐ray diffraction analysis, and density functional theory (DFT) calculations. The experimental and computational results suggest that the ortho‐substitution of the aryl groups is necessary for the formation of terminal borylene complexes.

The reactivity of a diruthenium tetrahydride complex towards three selected dihydroboranes was investigated. The use of [DurBH\(_{2}\)] (Dur=2,3,5,6‐Me\(_{4}\)C\(_{6}\)H) and [(Me\(_{3}\)Si)\(_{2}\)NBH\(_{2}\)] led to the formation of bridging borylene complexes of the form [(Cp\(^{*}\)RuH)\(_{2}\)BR] (Cp\(^{*}\)=C\(_{5}\)Me\(_{5}\); 1 a: R=Dur; 1 b: R=N(SiMe\(_{3}\))\(_{2}\)) through oxidative addition of the B−H bonds with concomitant hydrogen liberation. Employing the more electron‐deficient dihydroborane [3,5‐(CF\(_{3}\))\(_{2}\)‐C\(_{6}\)H\(_{3}\)BH\(_{2}\)] led to the formation of an anionic complex bearing a tetraarylated chain of four boron atoms, namely Li(THF)\(_{4}\)[(Cp\(^{*}\)Ru)\(_{2}\)B\(_{4}\)H\(_{5}\)(3,5‐(CF\(_{3}\))\(_{2}\)C\(_{6}\)H\(_{3}\))\(_{4}\)] (4), through an unusual, incomplete threefold dehydrocoupling process. A comparative theoretical investigation of the bonding in a simplified model of 4 and the analogous complex nido‐[1,2(Cp\(^{*}\)Ru)\(_{2}\)(μ‐H)B\(_{4}\)H\(_{9}\)] (I) indicates that there appear to be no classical σ‐bonds between the boron atoms in complex I, whereas in the case of 4 the B\(_{4}\) chain better resembles a network of three B−B σ bonds, the central bond being significantly weaker than the other two.

A set of diboryldiborenes are prepared by the mild, catalyst-free, room-temperature diboration of the B–B triple bonds of doubly base-stabilized diborynes. Two of the product diboryldiborenes are found to be air- and water-stable in the solid state, an effect that is attributed to their high crystallinity and extreme insolubility in a wide range of solvents.

The self-stabilizing, tetrameric cyanoborylene [(cAAC)B(CN)]4 (I, cAAC = 1-(2,6-diisopropylphenyl)-3,3,5,5-tetramethylpyrrolidin-2-ylidene) and its diborene relative, [(cAAC)(CN)B=B(CN)(cAAC)] (II), both react with disulfides and diselenides to yield the corresponding cAAC-supported cyanoboron bis(chalcogenides). Furthermore, reactions of I or II with elemental sulfur and selenium in various stoichiometries provided access to a variety of cAAC- stabilized cyanoboron-chalcogen heterocycles, including a unique dithiaborirane, a diboraselenirane, 1,3-dichalcogena-2,4-diboretanes, 1,3,4-trichalcogena- 2,5-diborolanes and a rare six-membered 1,2,4,5-tetrathia-3,6-diborinane. Stepwise addition reactions and solution stability studies provided insights into the mechanism of these reactions and the subtle differences in reactivity observed between I and II.