Once again I'm at my desk trying to plow through ISI's weekly barrage of information, and I happened on this beauty:
Obviously not the worst one, but still has some nice features. Again we see the complete disposal of the typical left to right, top to bottom method of layout most people in the western world are familiar with. Who doesn't like to needlessly read charted information the goes up?
The first little loopy section has 3 different sizes of arrowheads, when one or two would have sufficed, and later in the scheme there are another two different styles of arrowheads used for no reason.
There is text above the arrows, below the arrows, and even some partially upside down text.
Perhaps the best part is that there are no structures for just over half the compounds. That always clarifies a scheme. I'm sure everyone reading the paper know what 1,2-dihydroreticulinium and salutaridine look like, but not tyrosine or morphine.
I suppose the strange part is that the structures are drawn pretty well, for an author that can't keep the font size and capitalization consistent.
I almost immediately found this one after posting:
All the lines around the piperidines are supposed to be hydrogens. I assume they used the cyclohexane drawing tool in ChemDraw and just left all the lines. For some reason they took them out in some of the other drawings that weren't in table form, and in at least one case used a drawing with all the extra lines, and actually put an H on the one they were specifically talking about without madifying ant of the rest. It's like some sort of odd selective vision on the author's part.