Quote - SaintFox and MikeJ: if we end up keeping the current eyes and not replacing them with bagginsbill's(*), is there any good reason not to use my original UV-mapping for the eyes? It seems to me that that version always worked fine, seeing as it had the iris-sclera overlap already built in.

And if we use bagginsbill's, it seems to me that he's already mapped them as to work with the existing eye textures for my mapping, so there'd be no reason for a new UV-mapping, either.

This is not to diminish the efforts of either of you. It just seems to me as if you might be wasting your time on reinventing a perfectly functional wheel.

(*) And that's a big "if", because at the moment it seems to me that I'll use his as soon as I can get my grabby hands on them.

No, no problem at all. I was thinking the same thing, actually, but with it all up in the air and all I've just been continuing to work on it.
Did he mention the nature of the UVs? I was under the impression it was not mapped traditionally, but rather just a texture projection.
I also agree with you - the eyes you did are fine and I've said before I prefer the way you did them to the way I did.
It's your call, of course, and whatever you decided is cool with me. :-)