How do these paradoxical phenomena emerge? We succeeded here to perform an analysis of single-crystals with a multidomain, concave morphology using conventional crystallographic tools (point group, form, facet indexing) and relate the symmetry between the atomic and macroscopic levels. This analysis was possible because the morphological features (domains, lateral facets) are delimited by straight lines, keeping an overall polyhedral morphology. Other systems cannot be studied in such detail because of their curved shapes. The space group P622 was designated by Kitaigorodsky in 1973 as incompatible with the close packing of molecules and, therefore, has a very low probability to occur.(42) As of today, there are only a few examples available in the CCDC database. These known examples are MOFs and similar systems, rather than closed-packed organic molecules, as predicted. The channels and voids in our crystals are distributed in such a manner so that the geometrical unit cell does not coincide with the packing of the molecules. This fact likely makes the growth fronts of the crystal energetically and kinetically distinct for each of the different facets, and especially the parts of the facets. Molecular attachment should be more favored for areas of the unit cell that are denser, making the evolution of the crystal facets anisotropic. Consistent with this hypothesis, we observed that concave and protruding macroscopic areas of these crystals trace the underlying molecular edges and pattern. This molecular-macro parallelism is manifested both in the straight facets defining the form and the fine surface features, inducing the morphological domains. The deviation from the convex facets occurs with a certain regularity: the point group is respected, there is monodispersity in the length of the sides, and concave angle values are observed. These features are a further indication of the dominant role of the different chemical reactivity of regions of the unit cell.