I grant you that it is different in hue to your original. However that photo had quite a few tweaks done to it and I played with various versions. That version that went to print seemed to be the most neutral to me. I'm sorry if that bothered you.
In honest appraisal, it didn't meet the resolution and sharpness standard I had set - some of the photos including yours really had to be pushed about 500% beyond their limits to fill the calendar page at the appropriate resolution. There was a bunch of hot pixels on the original too.
We agreed that axolotls should figure in the calendar and we had a lot of very disappointing fare in terms of picture quality (the stuff I mentioned earlier as well as actual composition, etc). Had there not been a bias towards axolotls, I wouldn't have accepted your photo as being up to print standard based on the resolution alone.
Regarding the Tylos, yeah there was a lot. That's because many of the Tylo entries were of a better resolution and composition standard than the competition. If you had seen some of the photos we got you'd have been shocked. In retrospect, yours might have been high enough in resolution to print on a postcard, and that was in the top 50% in terms of resolution...
A lot of species and families were missing. That wasn't out of choice. Personally I'd rather have a calendar of a decent standard with overlap in species than one with a lot of bad photos and a spectrum.
I guess what I'm saying is that I/we did our best with what we had. Between the main 3 of us (Mark, Jen and I) we deserve a joint sainthood
.