Why is it called N-Methylmethanamine? [duplicate]








**This question already has an answer here**:
 
 




[IUPAC rules on omission of locants in carboxylic acid](/questions/84004/iupac-rules-on-omission-of-locants-in-carboxylic-acid)

 (1 answer)
 

Closed 2 years ago.



The IUPAC name of $(\text{CH}\_3)\_2\text{NH}$ is **N-Methylmethanamine** according to [PubChem](https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/#query=N-Methylmethanamine). Shouldn't the locant **N-** be dropped, given that there is no ambiguity over where the substitutent methyl may be located? (If it were attached to the carbon atom, the IUPAC name of the compound would be **Ethanamine**).




It is according to IUPAC rules that while naming alkyl substituted amines, we add a prefix of N before it. In this case also, it is the same... nevertheless, your reasoning of no ambiguity over dropping the prefix N is correct, but the name would not be Methylmethanamine (incorrect), instead it would be dimethylamine which is also correct.


 -1