Slashdot Mirror


The Beetle That Thought It Was A Precious Stone

circletimessquare writes "Queensland, Australia is well-known as one of the most important sources for opal in the world. Apparently Queensland has another untapped source of opal recently discovered in its backyard, except this source is not the providence of geology, but biology. A native weevil of Queensland grows opal on it's back shell! Implications for research into nanotechnology, biotechnology, and photonic computing are implied in the article. The journal Nature is publishing the more rigorous scientific write-up of the findings."

47 comments

  1. Biotech by Godeke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To paraphrase The Graduate, "In one word - biotech. The future, my boy, is biotech." Almost everything that is promised by nanotech devices will be inspired by, copied from or created out of biotech research. "Classic nano-tech" (the use of bulky, expensive machines to affect the nano-world) doesn't scale. Great for looking at nano stuff, but not for making it.

    There are already rumblings that some of the computer components in the fairly near future will be created by organic chemical processes depositing layers at accuracies that classic nano-tech might have achieved, but at a *scale* that makes it useful. A recent "IEEE Computer Magazine" had an article on using viruses to create transistor junctions. Even if this *particular* road dead ends, it seems impossible that organic nanotech won't be the preferred approach to making all things tiny and intricate, especially once we fall below the scale that chip masks are useful.

    --
    Sig under construction since 1998.
    1. Re:Biotech by mhw25 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Biotech is great if you want to churn out specialty drugs, hormones and stuff like that. But assembling "hardware" there will be a long way to go before it can catch even the most low end "Classic nano-tech".

      The bugs makes "nanoparticles" 250nm in size, i.e. 0.25 micron in size. In semiconductor 0.25micron is so old tech you can sell anything to China without anyone raising an eyebrow. The current highend semiconductor manufacturing is using 0.09 micron design rules, implying gate lengths of about 45nm and they are not going around shouting "Hey we are doing nanotech!"

      Biotech is great, but perhaps overhyped if people start associating it with anything. For the near future it will concentrate on and making heaps of money doing medical based and lifestyle enhancing (thing Viagra) products.

      Meanwhile semiconductor people will continue pushing the barrier and makes heaps of money doing so, without needing to spin itself with terms like nano- things. But to be fair they don't need to do too much convincing sceptical venture capitalists anymore.

      Perhaps organic chemists with their highly specific molecules may get to do some real results. But making proteins and complex molecules using cells is not nanotechnology. Looking at bugs who have 0.25micron particles on its back doesn't make the cut either.

      Read the articles again. The discoverer did not used "nanotechnology" nor hype it as such. But after getting a paper publish on Nature, perhaps he doesn't need the hype.

    2. Re:Biotech by Frennzy · · Score: 3, Funny

      I thought it was spelled 'biotch'. Move along, nothing to see here. Apologies. My bad. I take it back.

    3. Re:Biotech by gorilla · · Score: 1

      Please explain to me how 'this bug makes particles this size' implies 'no similar bioprocess could make particles any other size'?

    4. Re:Biotech by mhw25 · · Score: 1
      OK, fair enough that the bug makes that particular size and it could perhaps make it smaller, if you find a way of inhibiting the growth of the proto-opal crystal. Lets just say for arguments sake that you can perfectly control the size distribution of the particles it makes, say to some miraculously small scale, order of 10 atoms across, ie. about 1nm. Now you have bioengineered a bug to make 1nm particles, say of a particular shape. Is it biotechnology? Arguably yes. But conventional scientiest would call that particle technology (making, controlling particles, sometimes to very small scale - for example to use in a slurry that you want it to be stable enough, where size distribution is very important). But is it nanotechnology? Emphatically NO. It is just probably reflecting different wavelengths now, which is more of a function of its size. To qualify as nanotechnology, if must be able to have some function as a technology tool at a nanoscale. Say a nanoscale transistor, the holy grail being a single molecules that can act as a full transistor. Or nanocalar circuitry linking molecules together. Little gears at that sort of scale. Or a molecular sieve, that allows very specific molecules to pass through.

      Biotechnology being hyped up had actually burnt a lot of investors in the pass, most memorably in the 80s. Put the two hypes of nanotech and biotech together without any sound basis and that is a recipe for disaster.

  2. That's nothing... by blamanj · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...in Montana we have diamond-backed rattlesnakes.

    1. Re:That's nothing... by Beatbyte · · Score: 1

      Awesome! Down here in Florida we have cottonmouths!

    2. Re:That's nothing... by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Funny

      "...in Montana we have diamond-backed rattlesnakes."

      I can't wait to find a tit mouse.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:That's nothing... by wowbagger · · Score: 2, Funny

      Me, I want a pussywillow myself.

    4. Re:That's nothing... by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --And she better have red hair, too.

      "One time, in band camp..."

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  3. Teenage Mutant Ninja Weevils by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Opal on the back shell (weevil power!)"

    Oh yeah, I smell a tv show here...

  4. An Octopus's Rock Garden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Beetle That Thought It Was A Precious Stone

    I think Ringo must have smoked some really bad stuff that day

    1. Re:An Octopus's Rock Garden by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Funny
      I read the title as

      The Beatle That Thought It Was A Rolling Stone

      which would just be plain wrong.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  5. Nanundated by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 3, Funny


    For using "nano" three different ways in six different places, the author should opalogize.

    --

    Operator, give me the number for 911!
    1. Re:Nanundated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a jewel of a pun...

  6. pedantry and providence by flockofseagulls · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...this source is not the providence of geology, but biology.

    You must mean "...this source is not in the province of geology, but rather biology." If you can't choose the right words or put a sentence together you shouldn't expect anyone to give a lot of weight to whatever it is you're trying to say. And don't try to sound so fancy if you're going to trip over yourself: "the opals are formed through a biological rather than a geological process."

    Also I'm sure the weevil "grows opal on its back," not on it's back, which would mean "on it is back."

    providence: (1) Care or preparation in advance; foresight. (2) Prudent management; economy. (3) The capital of the state of Rhode Island.

    Provence: A historical region and former province of southeast France bordering on the Mediterranean Sea.

    province: (1) A territory governed as an administrative or political unit of a country or empire. (2) A division of territory under the jurisdiction of an archbishop. (3) A comprehensive area of knowledge, activity, or interest: a topic falling within the province of ancient history. (4) The range of one's proper duties and functions; scope or jurisdiction. (5) Ecology. An area of land, less extensive than a region, having a characteristic plant and animal population.

    provenance: (1) Place of origin; derivation. (2) Proof of authenticity or of past ownership. Used of art works and antiques.

    1. Re:pedantry and providence by ClioCJS · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, but was this submitted to an English teacher or a scientific community?

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    2. Re:pedantry and providence by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1

      I don't know who modded flockofseagulls's post as a troll, but my guess is that it may be someone who is as incapable as circletimessquare of using English correctly.

      If you are going to submit an article, you should at least take the time to check your spelling and grammar.
      Also, the Slashdot "editors" should actually edit the submissions that they accept.

      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  7. Nature Better Than Humans at Some Things by chia_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It kills me to see how people can be so surprised that nature is capable of producing such incredible things. When there is a new discovery of a naturally occuring disease cure in the Brazillian rain forest people go nuts. How about the fact spider's silk is stronger than kevlar? We've got plants that produce wonder cures. Animals that perform wondrous feats like this beetle that can make gems. And yet we humans still spend billions trying to "discover" new drugs or ways to manufacture crystals. We seriously need to look more at what nature has to offer and mimic that. It's more natural, it's been proven effective over thousands of years, and it will probably cost less.

    --

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
    1. Re:Nature Better Than Humans at Some Things by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      No, the reason that people like to be able to manufacture en masse is because it is cheaper. For some things, it is cheaper to get it from a living thing, for others to produce it artificially -- unless you want to get your aspirin by chewing willow, that is.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    2. Re:Nature Better Than Humans at Some Things by Vellmont · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We've got plants that produce wonder cures. And yet we humans still spend billions trying to "discover" new drugs

      I'm not really sure what you're getting at. It costs billions of dollars to screen the huge number of naturallly occuring substances in plants (irrational drug design). And it costs billions to figure out the shape of a receptor, and design a drug to fit into that receptor (rational drug design).

      The "naturally occuring disease cure" is just an accident. "nature" (whatever that means) wasn't trying to produce a cure, it's just that living things are very good at producing vast numbers of different organic chemicals, of which a percentage are going to be usefull drugs. Humans are the ones most responsible for finding these cures, not "nature" (if you can even really seperate the two concepts).

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:Nature Better Than Humans at Some Things by fain0v · · Score: 1

      I wish there were more people like you around. I have lost track of the number of times I have had to explain what you said to people.

    4. Re:Nature Better Than Humans at Some Things by edhall · · Score: 1
      Humans are the ones most responsible for finding these cures, not "nature" (if you can even really seperate the two concepts).

      Yes, of course humans are part of nature. The grandparent subject represents one of the more pernicious misconceptions people commonly hold (that humans are somehow outside of nature, whether above, below, or beyond it). But take your thought one step further: nature is parsimonious -- it tends to reuse molecules (not by any "intent," but because of the physical chemistry of DNA and proteins). So the molecules we find in other plants and animals are far from randomly related to those in our own bodies. That's why a molecule of chlorophyl and a molecule of hemoglobin have a lot of structural similarities. That's why there are plant proteins that behave like human hormones.

      So the original poster may be wrong-headed, but he's not altogether wrong. Plants and animals are a rich vein of potentially pharmacologically useful molecules (and of genes encoding those molecules). And even though we've come a long, long way in molecular biology, we still have a long, long way to go before we can replicate what several billion years of nature has "discovered."

      -Ed
  8. Butterflies are good at that, too by Jesrad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This beetle imitates opals by stacking layers of hexagonally aligned nanospheres (250 nm in diameter) to reflect one wavelength (color). If I'm not mistaken that's a lot like those butterflies that have scales sized in the same range of hundreds of nanometers to appear blue without synthetizing any colored substance.

    --
    Maybe we deserve this world ?
  9. ... and I've got by morcheeba · · Score: 1

    ... a tree that produces amber! (it just takes a little time)

  10. OMGosh!/!/! by Neop2Lemus · · Score: 0

    I must have kilos of opals inside me!

    --
    Needle Nardle Noo
  11. opal composition by morcheeba · · Score: 4, Informative

    Opals are actually just a mixture of tiny silica spheres and 3-10% water... "nanospeheres" are a defining characteristic of an opal; it's not a single crystal like many other types of gems. interesting reference

    1. Re:opal composition by RobertB-DC · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From the reference cited in the parent:
      Opal was formed millions of years ago, when silica and water, mixed together, flowed into cracks and spaces in the ground, then gradually hardened, solidified and became opal.

      Based on this article -- and on the fact that "96% of the worlds supply" (ref) comes from the isolated continent that just happens to be home to an opal-bearing bug -- I wonder if the theory of opal formation needs to be changed?

      After all, "silica and water" are a couple of the most abundant compounds on the planet. Wouldn't you expect somewhere besides Australia to have the right conditions for forming those silica nano-beads?

      My theory:
      Opal was formed millions of years ago, when dead Pachyrhynchus argus beetles and water, mixed together, flowed into cracks and spaces in the ground, then gradually hardened, solidified and became opal.

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  12. Structural Color: Butterflies to Jelly Fish by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is an entire field of research on this approach to color and photonic manipulation in biology (I first heard of this around 1980). Structural colors refer to coloration created not by dyes or pigments, but by microstructural features of the physical surface. The best example of this is the morpho butterfly . Many iridescent creatures get their colors from structural colors. Some of the darkest blacks are also structural.

    The transparency of jelly-fish is also structural -- the surface of the jellyfish has nanoscopic fingers (much smaller than a wavelength of light) that create a smooth transition between the high-index-refraction of the jellyfish and the low index of refraction of the water. The result is the ultimate in anti-reflection coatings and a much more transparent jelly fish.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Structural Color: Butterflies to Jelly Fish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa. I'm reading "Perdido Street Station" right now, and all I can say is.... those butterflies really creeped me out. Baby slake-moths, eh...

  13. Sorry, but this *bugs* me... by mOoZik · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Implications for research into nanotechnology, biotechnology, and photonic computing are implied in the article."

  14. Plus it is patentable by isn't+my+name · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, the reason that people like to be able to manufacture en masse is because it is cheaper.

    You can patent a process for producing things, but you can't patent a plant--though, unfortunately, in some locales you can patent the plant's genome.

    A wonderdrug like penicillin, that comes from naturally occurring processes, is not patentable, so you can't make money on it. An antibiotic produced via chemical, bioengineered, or nanoprocesses is patentable.

    So, the only financial incentive for investigating new naturally occuring drugs in nature is simply to identify them, figure out their molecular structure and determine how to produce them because that you can patent and that you can make money on.

    1. Re:Plus it is patentable by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can patent a process for producing things, but you can't patent a plant

      I'm sorry, but you in fact can patent a plant. In fact, they have "plant patents" here in the US specifically for such a purpose. In creating them, the quote was something to the effect of "I am sure that this will give us many more burbanks" - As in Luther Burbank, creator of the descendants of most popular current-day freestone peaches (I believe his peach is plant patent number fifteen.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  15. I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I wonder how long it takes before this species becomes extinct now it proves to have some value...

  16. Any mouse? by phorm · · Score: 2, Funny

    Any mouse has 'em... they tend to grow on the front :-)

    How else do you think they feed the baby mice?

    Perhaps you'd be better to look at rats to satisfy some of your cravings?

    1. Re:Any mouse? by tommck · · Score: 1

      I just picked my mouse up and all I see is one ball underneath!

      --
      ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
  17. What's the point? by karmaflux · · Score: 3, Funny

    Where's the dividend in opal? What we need is a crack beetle. Get to it, Aussies!

    --

    REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.

  18. Gold Bugs by Colymbosathon+ecplec · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I remember reading an article about bugs sweating gold: "Exactly what happened to cause Alaska's placer-building bugs to build up a gold molecule at a time isn't certain. Grossly oversimplified---and I certainly hope no chemist reads this---the metabolic products exuded by the bacteria interact with compounds in the environment virtually an electron at a time. So to speak, the bugs sweat solid gold. Others think the process may have had another purpose. British chemist Steven Mann speculates that the bacteria could be using "gold complexes...as terminal electron acceptors. If so, then this would be a novel form of energy transduction in anaerobic respiration"---that is, the gold buildup was an important part of the bacteria's life processes, not just a waste product like the crust of salt on an athlete's drying skin." Source

    Make Your Own Gold Mine

  19. sorry by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    my grammar sucks ;-)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:sorry by mOoZik · · Score: 1

      Don't worry about it, man, I was just whoring for a "5, Funny," but looks like I'll have to settle for a 3. :D

  20. It's called camouflage. by slittle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Uh, the parent should be +1 Funny not +1 Insightful.

    Just like oil, gold, diamands and whatever else are everywhere, so is Opal. It's just easier to get at in some places than others (see also: War on Iraq II :)

    And where a certain feature (colour, texture, critter, etc) is more naturally abundant in whatever form, the local wildlife will evolve to emulate it to avoid getting eaten.

    So you have reptiles that look like tree bark, butterflies that look like snake eyes, and bugs that look like expensive rocks.

    --
    Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
    1. Re:It's called camouflage. by RobertB-DC · · Score: 2, Funny

      So you have reptiles that look like tree bark, butterflies that look like snake eyes, and bugs that look like expensive rocks.

      Now that's teh funny!

      Actually, it would work quite well if your primary predator was the adult, married male (homo sapiens desperatus). Viceroy butterflies avoid being eaten by looking like poisonous Monarchs. A bird that takes a bite out of a Monarch is highly unlikely to even attempt a Viceroy. Similarly, these bugs would avoid being picked up by curious males, since we've picked up shiny rocks before and been hurt in the hip pocket.

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  21. Other examples? by BallPeenHammer · · Score: 1
    Aren't there other examples of living things that grow (or can be made to grow) materials that are useful for humans?

    I seem to recall animals being used to grow skin and arterial tissue for later use in humans.

    Plus, aren't there plants that ingest and retain toxic materials?

    This discovery seems like another situation where we can leverage what animals do naturally for our own purposes.

    It makes me wonder what else is possible that we haven't figured out yet.

  22. my god... by hyperstation · · Score: 1

    you mean there's something in nature that man hasn't exploited for profit yet?

  23. Re:Biotech nano-engineering ... "Prey"? by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

    Hmm, has anyone read the book Chrichton's Prey ? *shiver*