This article examines the electronic structure of group 2 (E = Be and Mg) ligand stabilized compounds. We elaborate on the donor–acceptor interaction L(0) ⇆ E(0) ⇆ L(0) and diradical L(−1) → E(+2) ← L(−1) pictures to assess the oxidation state of the metal.

Diradicals have been of tremendous interest for over a century ever since the first reports ofp‐ andm‐phenylene‐bridged diphenylmethylradicals in 1904 by Thiele and 1915 by Schlenk. Reported here are the first examples of cyclic(alkyl)(amino)carbene (CAAC) analogues of Thiele's hydrocarbon, a Kekulé diradical, and Schlenk's hydrocarbon, a non‐Kekulé diradical, without using CAAC as a precursor. The CAAC analogue of Thiele's hydrocarbon has a singlet ground state, whereas the CAAC analogue of Schlenk's hydrocarbon contains two unpaired electrons. The latter forms a dimer, by an intermolecular double head‐to‐tail dimerization. This straightforward synthetic methodology is modular and can be extended for the generation of redox‐active organic compounds.

A recent article by Pan and Frenking challenges our assignment of the oxidation state of low valent group 2 compounds. With this reply, we show that our assignment of Be(+2) and Mg(+2) oxidation states in Be(cAAC^Dip)₂ and Mg(cAAC^Dip)₂ is fully consistent with our data. Some of the arguments exposed by Pan and Frenking were based on visual inspection of our figures, rather than a thorough numerical analysis. We discuss with numerical proof that some of the statements made by the authors concerning our reported data are erroneous. In addition, we provide further evidence that the criterion of the lowest orbital interaction energy in the energy decomposition analysis (EDA) method is unsuitable as a general tool to assess the valence state of the fragments. Other indicators based on natural orbitals for chemical valence (NOCV) deliver a more reliable bonding picture. We also emphasize the importance of using stable wavefunctions for any kind of analysis, including EDA.