Generate an appropriate title for the given text. The generated title must be short and include the main topic of the text. The preferred titles are under fifteen words.

By Who, What WhyThe Magazine answers the questions behind the news Lobsters caught off the Atlantic coast of North America aren't usually very bright. They tend to be a murky, greeny-brown... until they are boiled, when they turn the orangey-pink familiar to diners with high disposable incomes. So two fishermen off the coast of Nova Scotia made the news when they caught not one, but two vivid blue lobsters in quick succession, 150km (93 miles) apart. Among the region's fishermen, it's traditionally considered to be a sign of good fortune. The probability of the creature having this colouring is widely touted as being one in two million. The University of Maine Lobster Institute is among those to have quoted these odds in the past, though its executive director, Rob Bayer, admits they are merely a "guess". "The chances of this happening nobody really knows," he says. David Spiegelhalter, professor for the public understanding of risk at Cambridge University in the UK, is inclined to pour a bit of cold water on the story. A rough analysis of overall catch tonnages suggests that about 200 million lobsters are caught in the North Atlantic every year, he says. That equates to 100 blue ones turning up in a year on average, if the one-in-two-million odds are correct. "So for two to be caught three days apart, quite close to each other, does not seem at all surprising," says Spiegelhalter. "I would imagine it happens most years." Bright blue lobsters are so-coloured because of a genetic abnormality that causes them to produce more of a certain protein than others. They stand out from the rest of a catch, particularly in western parts of the North Atlantic. "The American lobster is usually a sort of greeny-brown, so anything bright blue would look very odd to fishermen there," says Charlie Ellis, a researcher at the UK's National Lobster Hatchery, in Cornwall. "But European lobsters tend to be a duller blue colour. The real sort of iridescent blue is still rare here, but the difference is that, to a European fisherman, it will seem less completely out of the ordinary than it would seem to a North American." Ellis thinks the probability of a lobster being bright blue may be as low as one in a few hundred thousand. But another British expert, Andrew Parker of Oxford University's zoology department, disagrees - he backs the one-in-two-million estimate. It's safe to say that other kinds of lobster are even rarer. Yellow lobsters account for about one in 30 million of total stocks, the Lobster Institute estimates. But two fishermen in Dorset hit the ultimate lobster-probability jackpot in 2011 when they caught an albino, or "crystal", lobster - the odds of this are reckoned to be one in 100 million. "Whatever the odds of catching different-coloured lobsters, there's no denying that bright blue ones are truly beautiful creatures," says Bayer. "They might not be the most unusual, but they are undoubtedly the best to look at." One of the Canadian blue lobsters has already been returned to the sea. The other will be kept in a tank and released after the end of the lobster season in mid-July. Follow Justin Parkinson on Twitter @justparkinson Subscribe to the BBC News Magazine's email newsletter to get articles sent to your inbox.
How rare are bright blue lobsters?

The Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill will bring forestry under Holyrood's jurisdiction. However, opposition MSPs successfully changed the bill to mean it will be overseen by two "arms-length" agencies rather than a government department. Rural Economy Secretary Fergus Ewing said the passage of the bill was still "an historic occasion" in devolution. He said ministers would "make every effort" to make the approach demanded by MSPs work, despite having earlier warned them that it was not "the right way forward". The bill, as amended, ultimately passed unanimously, 120 votes to zero, and will now pass into law once it receives royal assent. The bill completes the devolution of forestry north of the border, and aimed to replace the Scottish branch of the Forestry Commission with a Holyrood government department. However after a last-minute campaign from foresters, Labour's Claudia Beamish tabled an amendment for the final debate stipulating that ministers establish "a single agency" rather than a new department. She said this would be a "lift and shift" of the current Forestry Commission Scotland into a new arms-length agency, thereby "preserving the valuable knowledge and expertise" of existing staff and structures. Ms Beamish said there were serious misgivings about the centralisation and even possible future privatisation of forestry - although the latter point was strongly refuted by SNP members, who called privatisation a "chimera". Another Labour MSP, Colin Smyth, added an amendment changing the wording to "an agency or two agencies", and this form of words was subsequently approved by 63 votes to 61. Among a number of other amendments forced through against the government's wishes, opposition members also united to strip some compulsory purchase powers out of the bill. Mr Ewing initially told MSPs that a single agency would be "disastrous" and said a two-agency approach "has not been sufficiently scrutinised or tested". He argued that setting up a forestry department would put the sector "right at the heart of government". However, he said he was "extremely proud to be the cabinet secretary responsible for this landmark bill", which he said would "modernise" the management and regulation of forestry and make it "fully accountable" to Holyrood. Mr Ewing said: "It is disappointing that we will now not be able to forge ahead with our planned arrangements but I will absolutely respect and deliver the will of parliament. "In working out how to deliver what parliament wants, I will do all I can to provide as much pace, clarity and certainty to ensure that the staff working currently in Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland can move swiftly and seamlessly to the new administrative arrangements." 'Successful brand' The move was welcomed by opposition members. Ms Beamish said it was "vital" the bill was amended, saying the change would "maintain the Forestry Commission but within a devolved settlement and adds a vital layer of parliamentary scrutiny". She said: "The Forestry Commission has been a successful brand and that would have been lost under the SNP's centralisation agenda." Scottish Tory MSP Peter Chapman said he was pleased that forestry agencies would not be part of the government, and also welcomed the removal of compulsory purchase powers for sustainable development cases. Green member Andy Wightman said the bill as originally written would devolve forestry but then allow it to "fall back into the hands of Scottish ministers", saying that parliament, not government, should determine the governance of land management. And Lib Dem Mike Rumbles said the change was "parliament working at its best", saying: "I couldn't understand why the Scottish government wants to centralise control over this and make them civil servants."
Forestry devolution plans stripped back by MSPs

"Michael had a very low pain tolerance," Debbie Rowe, mother to the singer's two elder children, told Los Angeles Superior Court. "His fear of pain was incredible. I think the doctors took advantage of him that way," she said. Ms Rowe was giving evidence in a civil action filed by Katherine Jackson over her son's death in 2009. The Jackson family claims concert promoter AEG Live failed to properly investigate Dr Conrad Murray - the former cardiologist who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2011 - and missed warning signs about the singer's health. Ms Rowe, who met the singer while working for dermatologist Dr Arnold Klein, was married to Jackson from 1996-1999. "Unfortunately, some of the doctors decided that when Michael was in pain they would try to see who could give him the best painkiller," said the 54-year-old former nurse. In court, she recalled seeing Jackson administered with the surgical anaesthetic propofol - the drug which ultimately killed him - in 1997, when he was struggling to sleep during the HIStory tour in Munich. 'End of his rope' She claimed, at the time, the doctors warned Jackson about the dangers of using propofol, but he disregarded the information. "Michael was at the end of his rope." "He was more worried about not sleeping than dying because he couldn't perform [without sleep]," said Ms Rowe, who became frustrated by the line of questioning in court, at one point shouting at lawyers representing AEG. She also described efforts to wean Jackson off painkiller Demerol, following surgery in 1993 for burns to his scalp which happened while filming a Pepsi advert. Efforts failed when a doctor who accompanied the singer on tour gave him the drug while overseas. AEG Live has argued Jackson had prescription drug and addiction problems long before entering into any agreement with the company. The company has argued that it did not hire or supervise Murray and could not have foreseen that he posed a danger to Jackson. Ms Rowe will continue testimony under cross-examination by Katherine Jackson's lawyers on Thursday.

Michael Jackson's ex-wife recalls star's fear of pain

