Why is the distinction from "coordinative bond" useful at all? [closed]








**Closed**. This question is [opinion-based](/help/closed-questions). It is not currently accepting answers.
 
 






---








**Want to improve this question?** Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by [editing this post](/posts/173228/edit).




Closed 4 months ago.








[Improve this question](/posts/173228/edit) 



There are 3 types of coordinative bonding, *complex formation at the electron donor*, *complex formation at the electron donor acceptor* and *complex formation at the electron acceptor*, so what is the difference between coordinative bonding and covalent and ionic bonding?


Holleman (the German "Bible" of Inorganic Chemistry in the 102nd edition) even writes that there is basically no difference, so why is there this concept at all?


[![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cvYEw.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cvYEw.jpg)


In other sources I find the explanation that coordinative bonds only refer to those where the electron pair comes from a single atom (donor), but Hollemann (whom I normally trust a lot) even writes:



> 
> Coordination bonds can formally originate half from Z and half from L.
> 
> 
> 


The other two cases (whole of L or Z) agree with the well-known definition of coordinative bonds...



> 
> ...in which the two electrons derive from the same atom.
> 
> 
> 


<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate%20covalent%20bond?oldformat=true>


