But first of all, Tim, a great photo series. It was exciting seeing being in the general area it came from. Zach's babies look great.
But this snake illustrates a point i've tried to explore more on the forums, without ever getting much response (disinterest? I'm not asking the question right? Or...?)
This snake's scales look pretty boldly white and black. But the snake has a dirty look, for want of a better term (no offense meant). Sorta a very, very mild case of the "grease king" look. And in this case, at least, it's clearly caused by the skin beneath the white bands being black, or dark, at least. Some of that skin shows at the margins of the scales, and that diffuses the contrast. I find that a little curious.
I've seen cal kings that are "clean" black and white, and in every case I've checked, those snakes have white skin behind the white scales. The question could apply to eastern kings, too.
So my question is: (and i know there are lots of you out there with specimens to examine, so we could get some good feedback quickly) Do some cal kings have skin that corresponds to the color/pattern of the scales, and some where that's not the case? Are the "clean" or boldly-contrasting kings always ones where the skin/scales colors align?
And equally of interest--to me, at least!--is to what degree is that an inheritable trait? Tim's female seems to have produced "clean" babies, though we'll have to wait til zach's put some more meat on them to be sure. (Actually, Zach, if you're willing, you could "stretch" the scales apart slightly on your babies to see whether the underlying skin matches the pattern on the scales). Have others produced "clean" babies from "dirty", in the sense I'm using the words here, or vice versa?
To broaden the question: What about other snakes, red rats for example. In what species or color varieties does the underlying skin pattern match the scale color/pattern, and in what instances does it differ?
Does anyone care? 
