Dedicated to Professor Jack D. Dunitz on the occasion of his 80th birthdayWe report some new observations in B¸rgiÀDunitz territory ± structureÀstructure correlations for the addition of N nucleophiles to the CO group. The amino aldehyde 1 exists predominantly in polar solvents, and exclusively in the crystal, as the carbonyl-addition structure 2, but appears to demand hydrogen-bonding solvation as part of the process. In terms of CÀO bond lengthening, the new system lies somewhere nearly halfway between an amino aldehyde and a stable quaternary ammonium aminal: we present the structure 2 ¥ Me of the N ÀCÀOMe derivative of 2 as an example. We have investigated the effects on the cyclisation equilibrium in this system of hydration, which is important, and of the degree of methylation of the azaadamantane skeleton, which ± unexpectedly ± is not. In terms of the reverse process, i.e., breaking the CÀN bond: in each case, the bond is lengthened by (n (O) Às* (CÀN) ) electron-pair donation from the O-atom (the generalised anomeric effect, as in 2 ¥ Me 6 3, below) [4]. This effect is strongest when the O-atom is negatively charged, reduced by hydrogen-bonding, and minimised by alkylation.Introduction. ± The work of the Dunitz school has had a major and lasting impact on the way we think about ± and teach ± some very fundamental chemistry. The idea that crystal structures ± to a first approximation static representations of stable molecules ± can provide important insights into reactivity is by now so familiar, and supported by so much evidence, that it no longer seems counterintuitive. We accept, for example, that the B¸rgiÀDunitz angle defines the preferred trajectory of approach of a nucleophile as it adds to a CO group, and, thus, contains fundamental information about the geometry of the orbital interactions involved in bond formation [1].We have learned also that crystal structure correlations can illustrate, or even reveal, quite subtle conformational and basic stereoelectronic preferences in suitable systems [2]. If the relevant data set is large enough, it is generally a reasonable assumption that intramolecular and packing forces specific to individual structures will −average out×, so that small molecules at least adopt the same conformation in the crystal and in solution. For example, the conformational preferences determined by the anomeric effect are observed in detail in series of crystal structures [2]; making the leaving group XO À better drives the conformations of benzylic systems ArCH(Me)-ÀOX towards the conformation required for optimal pÀs* overlap and subsequent cleavage [3], and the directionality of H-bonding to a CO group can be related to the shape of the electron density in the nonbonding orbitals of sp