Nautilus pearl

[SteveM]

The Nautilus shell Peter Ward provided in response to Antonio Checa's request for a 'juvenile' was the hatchling in the photo below. Nautilus hatches with its adult shape, having already completed seven chambers and one full whorl. A 'miniature.'

It offered an opportunity to shoot a few of the more typical pearls with shell in macro setting.

Pearls and swirls!

 

[GemGeek]

Epic.

 

[CortezPearls]

This is just getting better and better... wish I could do some detective work! Guess I will in the future...in the meantime please keep us posted

 

[SteveM]

This is just getting better and better... wish I could do some detective work! Guess I will in the future...in the meantime please keep us posted

Douglas, your contribution towards better understanding of Nautilus biomineral biology will be most welcome!

 

[SteveM]

Science knows no rest…

We are in Spain, having brought purported Nautilus pearls and shell specimens that were forwarded upon arrival to Antonio Checa at University of Granada. Yesterday Antonio announced the obituary for the pearl on the left below (shown along with two other specimens of similar interest), claimed by its finder to have been discovered while eating a cooked Nautilus approximately ten years ago. This pearl had become the primary candidate among our specimens for dissection.

Not an easy decision, as this pearl is (was) a close match to another in our collection.

The broken/crushed pearl reportedly confirms a previously-undocumented pearl microstructure, tentatively observed during ESEM surface examination in June, responsible for these pearls' singular visual properties as revealed in this thread. It is a microstructure that may, by its very existence, alter commonly-held views of the evolution of marine mollusks (and by extension, the evolution of complex life forms on earth). The broken pieces are being carefully carbon-coated and mounted for Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) observation by a team of researchers on Monday.

Parallel to this, Peter Ward has discussed DNA extraction from pearls with a colleague at University of Washington, Dr. Samuel Wasser, whose Center for Conservation Biology at UW is world-renowned for DNA source tracking of elephant ivory contraband. Dr. Wasser is quite confident (vs. many others with whom we have corresponded) in being able to extract DNA from pearls. Together with Peter Ward's Nautilus genome resources, this should move us a long ways down the road towards the conclusion this thread has been seeking for the past three years.

 

[pearlescence]

Nothing to do with pearls..but please remember that astrobiology is all very well for terraforming and the like but you need xenobiology and thinking outside the box for life across the universe. Who says that life is only possible on Goldilocks planets? Astrobiologists and the casting directors of Star Trek. The Universie probably thinks otherwise - reading list available if wanted

 

[SteveM]

No argument from astrobiology literature that the objective is life 'as we know it' (carbon-based, requiring liquid water).

Trekkies are more properly classified among xenobiologists?those willing to imagine the possibility of life beyond the boundaries of human science.

 

[pearlescence]

TrekKers can envisage life beyond the bounds of astrobiological Goldilocks science, which doesn't really contribute much to anything - since the chances of evolution staging a re-run exactly the same on another planet are micro. even Earth has tried it twice with hugely different outcomes.

 

[SteveM]

Earth has tried it twice with hugely different outcomes.

Not sure where you're trying to go here, but certainly all that is known about the history of life on earth we owe to astrobiology and its associated disciplines?

 

[pearlescence]

surely that is biology and paleontology? And possibly physics...

 

[SteveM]

surely that is biology and paleontology? And possibly physics...

Astronomy and biology. According to NASA web info, during the 90s bioastronomy was the leading term proposed as an overdue update to exobiology. Astrobiology achieved final consensus around the work of Ward (paleontologist/biologist) and Brownlee (astronomer/physicist) at University of Washington in the 1990s, work summarized in the iconic book Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe (2000), mentioned earlier in this thread.

The interdisciplinary scope of astrobiology includes the full range of physics, paleontology, geology, philosophy?you name it! My read on this ?ber science is that earth and all life on earth (especially complex life) are inevitably doomed by natural cycles?and that as humans, conservation holds the purpose of maximizing our lifespan as a species to the extent that we are able to discover and move to a suitable alternative habitat in order to begin anew before it's too late.

Nautilus is an animal that has survived, in very nearly its present state, every major species extinction event since the advent of complex life and is considered a living fossil. Its many mysteries and potential for learning keep the most prominent specialists (Ward, Checa, et al) in a state of continuous wonder. This pearl business has them buzzing, not for the pearls, but for what stubborn secrets they may yet reveal.

 

[GemGeek]

It is a far far better thing...

 

[pearlescence]

If interested in what alien life might really be like (no goldilocks) then read 'Evolving the Alien' by Dr Jack Cohen and Dr Ian Stewart, published by Ebury, 2002

 

[SteveM]

From Wikipedia on 'Evolving the Alien':

?life forms that are so different from life on Earth that we
may not even recognise them as life?​

There is no scientific disagreement between the two perceived camps. But Rare Earth astrobiology includes a paleontological base, i.e., Earth life history. Per my previous post, Rare Earth is as much concerned with Earth conservation as with life on other planets, which would in the ideal scenario prove to be of practical human application.

Evolving the Alien astrobiology is rooted in solid and indisputable theory, thus providing continuing inspiration for top level science fiction. If there is any controversy to be found here, it would be Alien Evolvers' rather transparent attempt to capitalize on the Rare Earth phenomenon (2002 publication following Rare Earth in 2000).

Monday is the third anniversary of Effisk's first post here, coinciding with our second visit to the lab of Antonio Checa at University of Granada. I hope to have something of interest to report pertinent to Nautilus.

 

[pearlescence]

Not really capitalising - Jack has been doing this work for about thirty years

 

[SteveM]

No doubt whatsoever, but the timing of publication will remain forever at face value.

Sorry to be so persistent here, but Evolving the Alien is entirely consistent with the Rare Earth Hypothesis and the attempt to create controversy where none exists seems a stretch.

 

[pearlescence]

Who is attempting to create controversy?

 

[SteveM]

Goldilocks?

 

[pearlescence]

Surprised you have not heard the term - used for in the box thinking by astrobiologists to describe planets which are not too hot, not too cold, not too wet. not too dry etc...ie the only planets which they think can possibly support life..

 

[SteveM]

I introduced the term earlier in the thread. Reference was to your mystery instigator.