Garter listing wrong?

[Tori]

I was checking out an ad for a few different kinds of garters, but after seeing the photos he had posted for each I believe that they are listed wrong. I thought I would see if anyone else feels that way. What he is calling red-sideds I think are oregon red-spotted and what he is calling a wandering garter looks more like a Santa Cruz, whatever it is I am certain it isn't a wandering garter. Here is the listings: NEW ARRIVALS I would love to hear everyone's opinions.

Tori

[Stefan-A]

Also calling T. e. vagrans (in reality Santa Cruz, like you said) "common garters".

[Cazador]

I noticed these adds, too. He also advertises for a "fire-striped garter." It seems like he's/she's a bit creative with the naming techniques .

[ssssnakeluvr]

I saw those too....nice looking ordinoides. he lists the red spotted garters as red siders.... It's hard to tell on the "vagrans" common garter...could be either t atratus or t elagans elegans...a subspecies of the western terrestrial garter... whichever one it is, its definitely not "common garters" or vagrans!!

[adamanteus]

I saw an ad in the UK for "Golden Garters". No pics with it, so I have no idea what they might be. Maybe Xenochrophis?

[GarterGuy]

Yeh, not really surprised......why I like to use the scientific names so there's not confusion. A lot of dealers will try to "spice up" the common names of snakes to try to make them sound more appealing. I actually bought my little Petra as a "redsided" garter, but knew she was a T.s.concinnus.
Roy

[adamanteus]

Yes, I must admit I prefer to use scientific names, but you still have to keep up with the regular taxonomic changes......look what they did to Elaphe!