Quote -
I am wondering something...
Although I'm sure MikeJ has done a fantastic job with the new mapping I thought this was made for using Antonia with other applications and that the original mapping would be for the Poser version (as it looks more poser friendly to me)
For us that would like to make textures for the original version only, is there a code name we should use so as not to confuse people?

I think he did a pretty good job with the UVs although I wouldn't say fantastic. I do know he's glad that the BB eyes will be the official ones, because he's not happy  with the mapping he did for the original eyes. ;-)
It wasn't made specifically for use in other applications. That's how it started, because I wanted something else, but UVs are UVs and all programs will use them the same way when it comes to pinning image maps down on a set of coordinates. While there are advantages for other programs in the new mapping, the converse isn't true - there aren't any disadvantages with them for use in Poser. So it's perfectly "Poser-friendly" but more importantly, it's also more Photoshop friendly when it comes to lining up textures against seams.
Although the whole concept of explicit UV mapping for image textures on models in general is flawed and limited, but that's a whole 'nother subject not worth considering until programs have better procedural materials and faster real time previews...

But to answer the question, Les' geometry switching could be used for that, as long as Antonia's base geometry doesn't change. You could take the newer Antonia with the better joints and eyes and morphs and plug the old geometry into her, and have the original UV mapping.
As for what designation that would have, currently Antonia 118 is the latest version to use the original mapping and textures. I would imagine that the next version will be 119 in keeping with the way he's been naming the incremental versions, but I would guess 118 will remain the last version of the original.
But unless the Photoshop-using texture people I know have been lying to me, the newer mapping makes for easier texturing and less distortion, so you'll probably see more support for new textures with the new mapping.

Just out of curiosity, why do you say the original looks more Poser friendly? As long as the general rules of UV mapping are followed, as far as I know Poser has no special requirements or anything that make one method better or more "friendly" to it than another.