“…the lighter congener of 2 ), its tin analogue was reported by Sadighi 14 and the heavier congeners of 3 and 4 were described by us 16 (relevant bond lengths (Å) and angles (°): (IPr)CuSiPh 3 , C–Cu, 1.9333(1); C–Cu–Si, 170.53(4); (IPr)CuSnPh 3 , C–Cu, 1.914(2); C–Cu–Sn, 169.6(8); (6-Mes)CuSnPh 3 , C–Cu, 1.927(3); C–Cu–Sn, 172.87(10); (6-Dipp)CuSnPh 3 , C–Cu, 1.934(3); C–Cu–Sn, 171.27(9)). 4,14,16 Comparison of the Cu–Ge bond distances between 1–4 show only limited variations as a consequence of the identity of the NHC, whereas comparison of 2 to (IPr)CuSiPh 3 and (IPr)CuSnPh 3 (Cu–E bond length (Å): 2 , 2.3038(3), 2.3085(3); (IPr)CuSiPh 3 , 1.9333(1); (IPr)CuSnPh 3 , 2.469(5)) exhibit unsurprising trends in the Cu–E bond lengths. A similar, predictable, lengthening of the Cu–E bond length when comparing 3 or 4 to their corresponding tin congeners (6-Dipp)CuSnPh 3 and (6-Mes)CuSnPh 3 is also observed (Cu–E bond length (Å): 3 , 2.3045(3); (6-Mes)CuSnPh 3 , 2.4567(4); 4 , 2.3456(12); (6-Dipp)CuSnPh 3 , 2.4742(4)).…”