Another interesting fact is observed. We have already commented that atomic charges as seen from our dot model are not the same as those predicted by Lewis formulas using only electronic doublets (Figures and). We have also shown how our simple dot scheme better responds to calculated atomic charges/electron distribution. Experimentally, whenever we are in the presence of a heteropolyhalide, the positions we draw as surrounded by fewer electrons are those that are actually occupied by the least electronegative element (atom 2 for a trihalide, atoms 2 and 4 for a pentahalide, etc…). This is not a new observation. We mention here specifically a 1993 contribution by Linn and Hall. They predicted the same molecular geometries using other concepts like VSEPR, dative bonds, and σ-holes, i.e. with electrons still localized/belonging to certain specific atoms (see above section): such a picture could not possibly account for 2c-1e bonds. Incidentally, the interesting mix of concepts calls again for the systematization of these interactions. For what concerns the notions of positioning of less electronegative atoms in heteropolyhalide chains, although Lin and Hall correctly demonstrated the point, they needed to calculate first the Bader's atomic charges for each investigated system. Alternatively, our way of drawing the Lewis dot formulas in this work offers an immediate qualitative description of the localization of atomic charges, which allows for a correct interpretation with a pen-and-paper approach, making understanding the matter much easier.