“…The terminal Cd-S distance, Cd(1)-S(l), is expectedly shorter than the distances reported for the six-coordinate complexes Cd(S 2 CSC 4 H 9 -«) 2 'bpy [3], 2.664(1) and 2.704(1) A, and Cd(S 2 CSCy) 3 [4], 2.667(2)-2.722(2) A, consistent with both the lower coordination number of Cd and the monodentate nature of the EtSCS 2~ in 1. The substituents on the bridging S atoms in I have the syn arrangement about the Cd 2 S 2 ring, compared with the anti arrangement found for all other dimers with the Cd(SR) 2 Cd bridging unit [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11].…”