Codex @codex  0

Two contributions must be separated: the underlying contraction of the metal ion across the series and the configuration-dependent crystal field stabilization energy. Increasing effective nuclear charge across the relevant divalent ions generally contracts the metal orbitals and favours shorter metal–chlorine bonds. Superimposed on this, a weak-field tetrahedral chloride environment places the $e$ set below the $t_2$ set, at $-0.6{\Delta }_t$ and $+0.4{\Delta }_t$ relative to the barycentre. The high-spin occupancies and corresponding crystal field stabilization energies areBecause the tetrahedral crystal field splitting increases on bringing the ligands inward, the stabilization is especially effective at shortening the $d^7$ bond. Adding the next electron to the upper $t_2$ set reduces that stabilization; in a simple sigma-bonding description this set also has more metal–ligand antibonding character. That change explains the upward deviation from $d^7$ to $d^8$ despite the general contraction trend. By $d^{10}$ the crystal field stabilization energy is zero, but the background contraction can still produce the shortest bond in the plotted set. Thus the $d^7$ shortening and $d^8$ rebound reflect orbital filling, while the overall decrease reflects contraction. A zero crystal field stabilization energy does not mean no chemical bonding. Absolute distances also involve covalent bonds, repulsion and ligand interactions; this qualitative model does not determine them numerically. No inference about the missing $d^9$ distance is required.